ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Palestinian State (UN Membership)

Margaret Curran: What his policy is on UN membership for a Palestinian state.

Sandra Osborne: What his policy is on UN membership for a Palestinian state.

William Hague: Membership of the UN by September is one option under consideration by President Abbas. We believe that Israelis and Palestinians should return to negotiations. We will make a decision on UN membership only at the appropriate time.

Margaret Curran: Time and again, the Secretary of State has said that he is in favour of an independent Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. Surely with events going apace in the middle east, the time is right to show solidarity with the Palestinians, support them at the United Nations and prove, once and for all, that we are on the Palestinian side.

William Hague: We have lent a great deal of support to Palestinians at the United Nations. For instance, as the hon. Lady will know, in February we voted for the Palestinian resolution on settlements. We voted the opposite way to the United States on that occasion, which is unusual for this country. We strongly support a future state based on 1967 borders, and we welcome President Obama’s recent speech in that regard. We must remember that the way to a viable and secure state is through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. It is to those negotiations that we want both parties to return.

Sandra Osborne: I am disappointed in the Foreign Secretary’s answer. If we wait for negotiations to resume, we will wait for ever, given how things are going. President Obama made self-determination the focus of his speech to the middle east and made reference to the brave
	people struggling for freedom in the Arab world. Does that not also apply to the Palestinians, and would UN membership not take us a step forward?

William Hague: The hon. Lady will have to be disappointed with the position of all European countries, because we have all withheld a decision on the question of Palestinian recognition and membership of the UN. It is vital to remember that the way to a secure Israel and a viable, prosperous Palestinian state is through negotiations between the two. She is right to be frustrated or exasperated by the time that the negotiations have taken. Nevertheless, there is no way to lasting peace in the middle east other than through those negotiations.

Malcolm Rifkind: Will the Foreign Secretary impress upon the Israeli Government in a friendly but firm way that the only manner by which they can avoid an overwhelming vote in favour of a Palestinian state at the General Assembly is if the Israeli Prime Minister gives an unequivocal commitment in support of a two-state solution, as proposed by President Obama, and a commitment to enter into early and meaningful negotiations to that end?

William Hague: Yes, I agree with that. My right hon. and learned Friend is right that it is important for Israel to show a readiness to negotiate in the light of President Obama’s speech and what could happen at the United Nations in September. Indeed, one advantage of the United Kingdom and other EU nations considering our position on this matter over the next few months is that it will maximise the pressure on both Israelis and Palestinians to enter such negotiations.

Menzies Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an essential feature of statehood is identifiable and recognised borders? Will he therefore confirm that there will be no compromise on the principle that any settlement must be based on the borders of 1967?

William Hague: My right hon. and learned Friend will know what the President of the United States has said about 1967 borders. We have always said that we mean 1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps of land. I therefore do not think that we can be as categoric as my right hon. and learned Friend, but based on those borders, subject to agreement, there will be a good deal of latitude.

Stephen Twigg: What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the moves towards Palestinian unity? Does the reconciliation process between Fatah and Hamas make it more or less likely that the United Kingdom will support UN membership for Palestine?

William Hague: Our stance on that, if it comes to that point in September, will depend on many things, including the issues that I have commented on. It is important that the reformed Palestinian Authority—we still await many of the appointments to that body—uphold non-violence, are committed to a negotiated two-state solution, and uphold the previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Those are the factors by which we will judge the Palestinian approach.

Andrew Percy: Mr Speaker,
	“peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state.”
	They are not my words, but those of President Obama. Might not moving too quickly towards a unilateral declaration of statehood undermine moves towards peace entirely, and should we not be seeking negotiations towards an agreement between the two parties outside the UN?

William Hague: My hon. Friend will have heard in my answers that we have placed our emphasis strongly on that. There is a need for a return to negotiations by both sides, and now that President Obama has made his speech about 1967 borders, I hope that Palestinians will take that approach. We have already talked about the Israeli approach.

Mr Speaker: John Cryer: not here.

Piracy (Horn of Africa)

Eric Joyce: What recent assessment he has made of the threat to UK shipping from piracy off the horn of Africa.

Laura Sandys: What recent progress his Department has made on its work to counter piracy off the horn of Africa.

Henry Bellingham: Thanks to international navies and the self-defence measures used by large sectors of the shipping industry, there have been no hijacks in the critical gulf of Aden trade artery since November 2010. However, piracy continues to pose a significant risk to shipping and seafarers in the Indian ocean, with 18 successful hijacks having taken place this year, so we are not complacent. Britain is playing a leading role in the counter-piracy operations at sea, and we are leading the international work with regional countries to help put in place penal and judicial facilities to deal with this evil.

Eric Joyce: The Minister is no doubt aware of the role of many British service personnel, and indeed ex-service personnel, in protecting shipping off Somalia in particular. Does he agree that in the end, only when Somalia has a high degree of law and order, which it does not at the moment, will the problems be properly solved?

Henry Bellingham: That is exactly why Her Majesty’s Government are putting so much effort into leading the international initiatives to help rebuild that failed state. Indeed, the Department for International Development has a four-year, £250 million programme for Somalia, which will focus on building regional judicial and penal structures, strengthening the police, strengthening regional coastguards and trying to help coastal communities find alternative livelihoods. As the hon. Gentleman says, the problem will be solved only on land.

Laura Sandys: We need to have a deterrent to piracy, and currently the British Chambers of Commerce states that 80% of those who are captured are then released.
	What measures can we put in place, and can my hon. Friend expand on the international agreements that we need to counter piracy?

Henry Bellingham: I share my hon. Friend’s great concern, because catch-and-release simply encourages further piracy. I recently visited the EU Operation Atalanta naval headquarters at Northwood, and the Minister for the Armed Forces made it very clear to me that the Royal Navy and other navies are doing all that they possibly can not just to capture pirates but to gather sufficient evidence for them to be put on trial in courts in the region. That is why I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are working very hard with regional countries to build the vital penal and judicial capacity.

John Spellar: I regret that the Minister’s reply was rather complacent. At a conference in Singapore last month, his colleague the Defence Secretary will have heard several Asian Defence Ministers express alarm at the considerable rise of piracy in the Indian ocean. Suggested solutions have included a greater use of convoys, Q-ships and private security; particularly importantly, changed and toughened rules of engagement; and possibly exclusion zones. The international community is united on the need for the matter to be brought to a head. As we are a major maritime nation, when will the Government get a grip and take a lead to combat this menace, particularly by getting international agreement and changed rules of engagement?

Henry Bellingham: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration. As I explained, there has not been a successful hijack in the gulf of Aden artery this year, because activity has been displaced into the ocean, and we are having significant successes. I can tell him that the EU agreed in May to amend its operational plan to deliver more robust action. I cannot discuss that publicly, but it is largely the result of efforts being made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are very much on the case.

Balkans

Harriett Baldwin: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in the Balkans; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: We welcome Croatian’s progress towards EU membership, and the arrest of Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladic. We are seriously concerned by the political situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where there remains a need for sustained EU focus and a clear international strategy. There is also major work to be done on the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo; to resolve the issue of Macedonia’s name; as well as in restoring a functioning political dialogue in Albania. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe visited the western Balkans last week to discuss those and other issues.

Harriett Baldwin: At the recent NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the noble Lord Sewel presented a draft report on Kosovo, which described a dire economy with weak institutions, ethnical divisions, corruption and organised
	crime, and poor relations with neighbours. Kosovo is not universally recognised as a state, but does the Foreign Secretary believe that it will one day be a viable European democratic state?

William Hague: Yes, I believe it will be, but bringing that about requires a great deal of work. We have been encouraging other nations to recognise Kosovo, but it is important that work takes place on economic development and the rule of law. It is also important to develop a positive track record of compliance with the requirements of the IMF programme. We look to Kosovo to do all those things.

Denis MacShane: May I welcome, as I am sure the Foreign Secretary does, the arrest of Ratko Mladic and his dispatch to The Hague? Eight thousand Europeans were taken out and shot one by one in the biggest single mass murder since Katyn. It was not, if I may say so, Britain’s finest hour in foreign policy.
	As we move forward in the Balkans, will the Foreign Secretary join me in urging President Tadic and responsible Serb politicians to recognise Kosovo, and to stop the blocks to Kosovo trading in the region and to its joining international institutions? The reason that Kosovo has the economic problems to which the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) referred, is that Serbia will not allow it—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have the thrust of the question. We are most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

William Hague: I went to Belgrade last summer to discuss those issues with President Tadic, and urged him to enter into an EU-facilitated dialogue with Kosovo. That was the essential first step towards what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. President Tadic agreed, and I now urge the Governments of Serbia and Kosovo to engage with each other constructively. With good will on both sides, a dialogue can help to move both states towards EU accession.

Bob Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scourge of organised crime in the Balkans is one of the biggest obstacles to good politics developing there?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely—it is extremely important to tackle those things to maintain the European perspective of the western Balkans countries. That is why in Croatian accession negotiations chapter 23 is of such importance. That will be true of all those states, and they should heed my hon. Friend’s words.

Wayne David: Does the Secretary of State believe that Croatia’s membership of the EU would act as an effective catalyst for other states? Will he offer a time scale on that?

William Hague: We hope that Croatia’s membership will encourage other states, although we also hope that they will draw the lesson that it is important to meet the conditions of EU membership. That is vital if the accession process is to have credibility in future. We are now in the closing stages of the negotiations on EU
	accession, and the Commission has made a positive recommendation. The matter will be discussed at the European Council next week; it would be premature for me to discuss dates ahead of that.

Popular Protest (North Africa and the Middle East)

Graeme Morrice: What recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of further popular protests in north Africa and the middle east.

William Hague: Demands for greater political, social and economic participation will continue in the middle east and north Africa unless Governments work to fulfil the aspirations of their people. Through our Arab partnership initiative, the review of the European neighbourhood policy and the Deauville partnership announced at the G8, we are working with partners in the region to support those who seek political and economic reform.

Graeme Morrice: Given that Governments have disrupted access to the internet during protests on a number of occasions in recent months, what specific measures have the UK Government taken to support peaceful demonstrators organising online?

William Hague: Of course, we always support access to the internet politically and diplomatically. Indeed, one measure in our draft resolution on Syria, which is before the UN Security Council, seeks freedom of access to the internet. We sometimes also take practical measures to try to maintain access to the internet or give people advice on how they can access it. I do not want to give any technical details of that, because it would of course make it easier to frustrate them.

Robert Syms: One of the features of the popular protests is the flow of information from organisations such as the BBC World Service. I know that the Foreign Office is having another look at the budget for the BBC World Service, but when are we likely to get a decision about its future shape?

William Hague: The Government have taken full note of the debate in the House two or three weeks ago calling for a review of that decision, and we are accordingly looking at the subject, along with the World Service, which is also considering its allocation of priorities. I think that by early July we will be able to come back to the House.

Douglas Alexander: Owing to the popular protests in north Africa and the middle east, the Opposition have been arguing for months that the European Union’s External Action Service budget should be rebalanced in favour of post-Ben Ali Tunisia, post-Mubarak Egypt and, we hope, a post-Gaddafi Libya. Following the Deauville announcement, of which the Foreign Secretary spoke, will he tell us whether he now feels that the EU contribution is adequate to the challenge and risks, and what proportion of that money is new money?

William Hague: The crucial thing is the money available for development and economic partnership, rather than the budgeting of the External Action Service. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the proposal published on 25 May by the Commission set out a plan that included €750 million of additional resource in order for the EU to work with the economies of north Africa. That is subject to further discussion at the European Council next week, but that is the Commission plan.

Douglas Alexander: Let me ask about one country in particular—obviously, Libya. On 13 April, the Foreign Secretary told us that
	“the United Nations should take forward lead planning for early recovery and peace-building in Libya.”
	Last Tuesday, he told the House that rather than the European Union or the United Nations,
	“Britain is in the lead in post-conflict planning.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 38.]
	Given his further worrying statement last week that planning is only at “an embryonic stage”, can he tell us who precisely is responsible for post-conflict planning? Is it the United Kingdom, the United Nations or the European Union? Furthermore, when will they come forward with something more than an embryonic plan?

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman is conflating several different subjects. What I said needed fleshing out in more detail was the immediate planning of the national transitional council in Benghazi for the day after Gaddafi—if we can express it like that. It is doing a lot of that work, and we are looking forward to it communicating that. That is taking place, and we are in the lead in terms of looking in detail at the stabilisation response. Our stabilisation response team has been in Benghazi and is now writing its report, but we have been working with Italy and Turkey on that. So the UN will have that responsibility for co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and for the future, but Britain has taken the lead in putting people on the ground and doing the thinking. None of those things is inconsistent with the others.

Martin Horwood: Will the Foreign Secretary take up with the Bahraini Government the specific case of Ayat al-Qormozi, the young woman who has now been imprisoned for nothing worse than reading out a poem to freedom at the Pearl roundabout, and can he do that as part of a more robust approach to the Bahraini Government and their Saudi guardians?

William Hague: Yes, of course we take up and express to the Bahraini authorities the need for universal respect for human rights, including for due process, and that is what we look to them to bring about in their judicial process. I have strongly expressed that view to the Crown Prince of Bahrain, and we will continue to make those representations to the Bahraini authorities.

Belarus

Pamela Nash: What representations he has made to the Government of Belarus on standards of governance in that country.

David Lidington: We have made direct representations at ministerial, ambassadorial and senior official level on a number of occasions, and of course we continue to condemn the imprisonment of Opposition politicians in Belarus, as well as the persecution and harassment of civil society leaders and human rights defenders there.

Pamela Nash: President Lukashenko’s Administration are responsible for a series of enterprises, the profits from which are kept within the presidential Administration, including the KGB. Owing to clear close financial links between state oppression and such enterprises, is it not time that the UK looked at prohibiting British trade and investment with those companies?

David Lidington: As the hon. Lady knows, together with our European Union partners we have agreed a set of sanctions targeted against leading members of the Belarusian regime. There is also a review of the possibility of additional economic sanctions. Not every EU country has expressed itself in favour of that course, and we must take account of the need to get the balance right between harming the regime and not trying to impoverish further a people already oppressed. However, I take seriously the point she makes.

Tracey Crouch: The Minister will be aware that, in light of its economic failures, Belarus has requested a further £5 billion bail-out from the IMF. What discussions has he had with the Treasury to ensure that Britain will not support a bail-out package unless it comes with a firm commitment from the Belarusian regime to recognise the basic rights and freedoms of its media and civilians?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend puts her point well. As she rightly says, the economy of Belarus is in a dire state, and the Belarusian Government’s economic policies, as well as their internally repressive policies, are making a bad situation even worse for the people of that country. We are considering—both internally in the United Kingdom and in concert with international partners—what our approach might be in the event of Belarus applying for further help from the IMF.

Tunisia

Graham Stringer: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Tunisia.

Alistair Burt: We believe that the relationship between the interim Government and the growing number of political parties in Tunisia is a stable one, as we head towards the democratic elections in October. There are challenges—partly in the technical arrangements for a nationwide election and partly, of course, in the economic challenges that the country faces because of the events of recent weeks—but we believe that the building blocks for democracy will be in place as we get to October.

Graham Stringer: I am generally less optimistic about the Arab spring than the Government as a whole. However, given the unique history of Tunisia as probably
	the most progressive country in north Africa, it could act as a beacon of hope, yet there are reports of interference from fundamentalists in the proposed Tunisian democratic process. What further help can the Government give to the democratic forces in Tunisia?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman’s caution is well balanced and understood. It is right to recognise the good things that are happening—he is right about Tunisia’s background—but there are risks attendant. We have already committed about £1.5 million of the original £5 million of the Arab partnership initiative to work in capacity building, strengthening political institutions and other such issues as we head towards the election. There will be more money available through the partnership, but we are also looking to swap expertise and help to build up the embryonic political parties in just the sort of areas in which the hon. Gentleman would expect us to be involved.

Gary Streeter: I congratulate the Foreign Office on setting up the Arab partnership fund to enable the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other participators to help the emerging political forces in Tunisia to march towards democracy. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important not to overlook the moderate Arab states—Morocco, alongside Tunisia, and, a little further away, Jordan—which have not had a revolution but which are doing the right thing and moving towards democracy? We should be supporting them, too.

Alistair Burt: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we will do that. Relationships with both Morocco and Jordan are good. They appear to have put themselves ahead of the curve by responding to the aspirations of the people in what we would all consider to be an appropriate manner. We are looking to the WFD to deliver quite substantially on its obligations. Helping the political parties to develop is a heavy responsibility, but one in which the WFD can play an important part.

Naomi Long: The Minister will obviously also be aware of the growing humanitarian pressures at the border between Tunisia and Libya. What offers of assistance, either technical or financial, have been made to try to address the issues of clean water and access to sanitation in that area?

Alistair Burt: We are very conscious of those pressures. First and foremost, most of them are being absorbed by the Tunisian people themselves; indeed, it is remarkable how many families have taken into their own homes those fleeing from neighbouring Libya. However, DFID has also been at work providing exactly the support that the hon. Lady would expect from us. Millions of pounds have already been committed, and this support will continue to assist people.

Legal Fees (Offences Abroad)

George Eustice: In what circumstances his Department considers providing financial assistance for legal fees of British citizens charged with offences abroad.

Jeremy Browne: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not provide financial assistance for legal costs for British citizens arrested overseas. We provide information about the local legal system, including whether a legal aid scheme is available. We can also provide a list of local English-speaking lawyers, and we work with non-governmental organisations that might be able to offer support.

George Eustice: The Minister will be aware of the plight of my constituent, Stephen Scarlett, who remains in prison in Senegal despite the fact that his sentence ended in February. His family have been unable to get any financial support from the Foreign Office to help them to navigate the local legal system. Does the Minister agree that, in such extreme cases, the needs of such people are the most acute of all? Will he look into providing financial assistance in this case so that Mr Scarlett can be reunited with his family?

Jeremy Browne: I understand the distress felt by Mr Scarlett and his family over the length of time that it is taking to resolve his case. He has been assisted by the British embassy in Dakar, and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a whole. However, the responsibility for ensuring that he receives the best possible outcome rests with his lawyer. I can add that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office supports and part-funds three groups: Prisoners Abroad, Reprieve and Fair Trials International, all of which assist British citizens. We are aware that Fair Trials International has offered its services to Mr Scarlett’s family.

Middle East (Business Initiatives)

Michael Dugher: What support his Department is providing to co-existence projects and joint business initiatives between Israelis and Palestinians.

Alistair Burt: The Department for International Development spends about £73 million in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories on a range of measures to promote peace through the conflict prevention pool and on economic development. The Foreign Office is spending some £70,000 this year on the kind of co-existence projects that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, ranging from language development to courses and work inside Israel to help to bind communities together.

Michael Dugher: According to answers to written questions in January, only 1% of European Union aid to the Palestinians goes to civil society projects. What are the Government doing to ensure that a greater proportion of EU aid is spent on developing the co-existence projects that are so vital to the peace process?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman is right about the proportion spent, which I picked out for the answer that I have just given him. Sometimes it is difficult to separate these things out, category by category. For example, the £30 million that goes into the promotion of Palestinian economic development feeds into work on prosperity and co-existence issues. The Foreign and Commonwealth
	Office is open to more project applications coming in for exactly such projects, and I will certainly work with the posts involved, in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, to see what more we can do to encourage the activities that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Andrew Turner: Will the Government make it clear to the Israeli Government that an attack on any future humanitarian flotilla would be met by international condemnation?

Mr Speaker: May I gently remind the Minister that we are talking, narrowly, about co-existence projects and joint business initiatives?

Alistair Burt: I believe that I would be right in saying that we see events such as the reopening of the Rafah crossing in Gaza as an opportunity to help economic development and to encourage co-existence, because the greater the economic development on the west bank and in Gaza, the more opportunity there will be for both, and the less need there will be for anyone to be tempted to try to use a flotilla as a means either of bringing in produce or of making a political point.

Corporations (Conflict Zones)

Grahame Morris: What steps he is taking to increase international legal protection for those affected by corporate abuses in conflict zones.

Henry Bellingham: The Government totally deplore any company anywhere in the world that ignores human rights. It is especially important that companies set the highest possible standards when operating in failed states or conflict zones. That is why we support the excellent work being carried out by Professor John Ruggie, the United Nations expert on business and human rights. We particularly welcome the final version of his guiding principles, which deals with this subject.

Grahame Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he go just a little further? Given the effect that legal protections could have on the lives of ordinary people in countries such as Peru, Indonesia, Mexico and even the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, where there have been cases of abuse, torture and even killings when citizens have protested against large-scale private sector projects, will the Government confirm that they are supporting Professor Ruggie’s recommendation that the UK Government explore additional legal protections for victims of corporate abuse in conflict zones?

Henry Bellingham: I had the chance to meet Professor John Ruggie the other day, and I am working hard to ensure that the guiding principles are incorporated and endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, as that would provide extra clout and credibility.

Afghanistan

Owen Smith: What recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the political situation in Afghanistan.

William Hague: I last met Secretary Clinton on the eve of President Obama’s state visit. We had a productive discussion on a range of issues, including the political situation in Afghanistan.

Owen Smith: I am grateful for that answer. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether those discussions also touched on the prospect of British troops remaining in Afghanistan post-2014, and if so, how many and with what remit exactly?

William Hague: Yes, such matters were included in our talks, but they are also a matter of our public policy position. As we have said, British troops will not be engaged in a combat role after 2015 or in anything like the numbers that are involved today. We have set out our intentions in line with the prospects and aims for transition to Afghan security control throughout Afghanistan by 2014.

Julian Lewis: Given that it is highly unusual to set a withdrawal date in the middle of a counter-insurgency campaign, has my right hon. Friend received any indication from the Americans that they are considering the retention of a long-term strategic base or bridgehead area in the region so that real pressure can be exerted on both sides to reach an appropriate settlement?

William Hague: The long-term relationship—after the insurgency and after the transition in 2014—between the United States and Afghanistan is subject to negotiation at the moment between those countries, so it is not possible to give a precise answer to my hon. Friend now, but it is possible to say that such matters are under discussion.

Keith Vaz: Last week, members of the Home Affairs Committee visited the border of Greece and Turkey and the detention centre at Filakio, where we were told that 50,000 Afghanis had crossed the border between Turkey and Greece last year. In his discussions with the Americans, will the Foreign Secretary talk about the mass migration—the illegal migration—of hundreds of thousands of Afghanis from Afghanistan into western Europe?

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which underlines the need to bring stability to Afghanistan in the future so that those who wish to be in the country can have their homes and livelihoods there. I will certainly give attention to his point.

John Baron: Given that the Taliban will not be beaten and that the situation does not seem to be getting any better, despite the surge, may I press on the Foreign Secretary again the need for the Americans to open meaningful, non-conditional talks with the Taliban, because the Americans need to realise that, as we proved in Northern Ireland, it is possible to talk and fight at the same time?

William Hague: Yes, I think that point is well understood. In her speech of 18 February, Secretary Clinton called for a political surge alongside the military surge. That is
	very much in line with our country’s approach, so that is of course the case. At the same time, another thing that is changing, for which my hon. Friend should give credit, is the huge expansion and intensive training of the Afghan national security forces. That bodes well for the longer term.

Syria

Mark Menzies: What recent reports he has received on Syrian protests on the borders of Israel; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: We are deeply concerned by reports that a number of protesters have been killed and others injured. We recognise Israel’s right to defend herself. Any response must be proportionate, avoiding lethal use of force unless absolutely necessary, and the right to protest should be respected. I call on all parties to do everything they can to protect the lives of civilians and to avoid provocative acts.

Mark Menzies: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer, but what does this incident tell us about wider foreign involvement in Syria and the Syrian Government’s handling of protest and unrest?

William Hague: I am not sure what this incident in itself tells us about international involvement in Syria. I certainly believe that Iran is engaged in giving direct support—both advice and technical equipment—to Syria in the suppression of the peaceful protest, which is an extraordinarily hypocritical position given Iran’s support for protests elsewhere in the Arab world. I cannot say that that is connected with this particular incident, but since the area on the other side of the Golan heights is under the direct control of the Syrian authorities, people can draw their own conclusions.

Louise Ellman: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the recent incidents on the Syrian-Israeli border were organised by the Syrian Government in an attempt to distract attention from the brutal way in which they are dealing with their own internal rebellions?

William Hague: I do not want to add to what I said a moment ago about that. It is a remarkably convenient distraction from the point of view of the Syrian Government. The position requires both sides—Israel in its response to such provocations, and Syria in any role that it may play in such provocations—to exercise much greater restraint.

Richard Burden: On a point of fact, have there been any Syrian protests on the Israeli border? I thought that the protests were in the Golan heights, which, last time I looked, were Syrian territory illegally occupied by Israel.

William Hague: The Golan heights are occupied territory, but no one can dispute the fact that the territory on the other side is unequivocally under the operational control of Syria. That is the point I am making.

Libya

Marcus Jones: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Libya; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: When I went to Benghazi I was impressed by the progress being made, by the sense of optimism, and by the belief in a democratic future that I heard about from ordinary Libyans and the leaders of the national transitional council. The Gaddafi regime is isolated and on the defensive, and, through a combination of military, economic and diplomatic means, we are ramping up the pressure for a genuine political solution for the Libyan people.

Marcus Jones: Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that further defections from the highest level of the Gaddafi regime, further loss of ground to the opposition forces, and the growing authority of the national transitional council all point to an inexorable squeeze on the regime?

William Hague: My hon. Friend sums up the situation very well. All those are indeed increasing pressures on the regime. The high-level defectors included a number of generals and the head of the state-owned National Oil Corporation, and we have reason to believe that many others would defect if they could do so safely, or if their families would not be under threat if they did so. Certainly the morale of the regime is much lower than it was some weeks or months ago, and, as I saw myself, the morale and organisation of the national transitional council have improved considerably.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm once and for all that the purpose of Britain’s military, economic and political involvement in Libya is regime change? Will he also confirm that, for that reason, it has been impossible for any traction to be applied by the European Union, NATO or Britain to bring about an urgently needed political solution and a ceasefire to prevent any more lives from being lost, before the war gets worse?

William Hague: Our military role is defined by United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, and it is our implementation of that resolution that has saved thousands of lives. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an opponent of the resolution, but if we had not had it, far, far more people would have died than have done thus far in the situation in Libya. It is, additionally, true that we believe Colonel Gaddafi should go, but that is the belief of the vast majority of nations in the world—even many around Africa now, and even Russia at the G8 summit—and, judging from what I saw in Benghazi, it is the belief of a vast number of Libyans as well.

Syria

Diana Johnson: What recent reports he has received on the use of violence against pro-democracy protesters by the Syrian Government; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: The Syrian Government continue to use unacceptable violence against pro-democracy protesters. Syrian security forces have launched an offensive against Jisr al-Shughour and neighbouring villages. There are reports of a military build-up in other towns in Syria, including, overnight, Deir ez-Zur in eastern Syria. There are credible reports that more than 1,000 people have been killed since the beginning of the protests. The violence is unacceptable, and it should stop.

Diana Johnson: Has there been any progress in giving the Red Cross access to civilians who have been attacked by the military in Syria?

William Hague: That is a good question. Sadly, the answer is no. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development discussed the matter directly with the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross a few days ago. One of the things that we have called on the Syrian Government to grant is humanitarian access, which remains a prime consideration in Syria. I will discuss tonight with the Turkish Foreign Minister what further work can be done with Turkey— Syria’s closest and, perhaps, most important neighbour in terms of diplomatic relationships—to try to persuade the Syrians to grant such access.

Japan

Tom Blenkinsop: What recent assessment he has made of the state of bilateral relations with Japan; and if he will make a statement.

Jeremy Browne: The United Kingdom has a strong and broad bilateral relationship with Japan, encompassing long-standing commercial, cultural and official ties. These relations have been enhanced in recent months with the visit of the Japanese Foreign Minister to London and the Business Secretary to Japan. I also plan to visit Japan next month to develop the relationship further.

Tom Blenkinsop: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he update the House on what the UK Government are doing to support British businesses that work in, and with, Japan, and particularly to ensure that supply chains operate effectively?

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valuable point, because there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in Britain whose jobs depend either directly or indirectly on direct inward investment from Japan, and about 17,000 Britons work in Japan. We therefore constantly turn our attention to how we can deepen the commercial relations between our two countries, which are, after all, the third and sixth biggest economies in the world, so this is crucial to the prosperity of our country.

Topical Questions

Stephen Hammond: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

William Hague: In addition to the many situations we have already discussed, I am deeply concerned by the worsening situation in Sudan. We call upon all parties to cease hostilities and return to negotiations, and to allow full humanitarian access. We are working very closely with the African Union to support the peace negotiations currently under way in Addis Ababa.

Stephen Hammond: Further to those remarks, when does the Secretary of State expect those negotiations to resume, and what further action do the British Government intend to take in this regard?

William Hague: Our special representative is intimately involved in those negotiations. A few days ago, I spoke to former President Mbeki, who is leading the conduct of the negotiations. In recent days, I have also spoken to President Kiir on the south Sudanese side and the Foreign Minister in Khartoum for the north, so we are highly active in trying to push for a solution, and that includes working with Ethiopia. It is not possible to say when the negotiations will resume, but real progress needs to be shown before 9 July, which is, of course, the date for the independence of South Sudan.

Douglas Alexander: The whole House will be aware of reports that more than 5,000 Syrian refugees have registered with officials on the Syria-Turkey border and that many more are poised to flee Syria. I welcome the statement the Foreign Secretary has just made, informing the House that this evening he will be speaking to the newly elected Turkish Government about the situation in Syria. How hard will he, as a friend of Turkey and its EU membership aspiration, be pressing for that country to step up its regional leadership role, particularly in relation to Syria?

William Hague: I will, of course, be doing that, and the Prime Minister has already spoken to the Prime Minister of Turkey since the Turkish election results on Sunday night. Turkey plays a strong leading regional role, and, despite its own election campaign, has made many efforts in recent weeks to persuade the Assad regime to adopt a different course. I am sure it will want to redouble its efforts now, given the worsening situation on its border, and I will strongly encourage it to do so, as well as take its advice about the wider international handling of Syria.

Jesse Norman: The whole House will share the concern felt by many British nationals at the spread of violence and unrest in the Sudan. Will the Minister therefore update us on the current situation?

Henry Bellingham: I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concern about what is happening in Abyei, South Kordofan and Unity state. To add to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we are keen to see action at P5—the permanent five—level and for the issue to be raised at the United Nations Security Council in the very near future, hopefully this week.

Kevin Brennan: My constituent, Mr Jamal Teer, was evacuated from Libya as part of the British evacuation, along with his pregnant Libyan wife. They have now received a bill from the NHS for £1,255 for the birth of their child. Is this any way to treat a family fleeing Gaddafi, and will the Minister undertake to look into the matter with his ministerial colleagues here and in Wales?

Alistair Burt: I am clearly unaware of the precise circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman, although of course I will happily look into this matter. The case might be to do with regular UK status, and would therefore be hit by certain benefit regulations about being ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. The decision might have more to do with that than anything else, but at this stage I would be very happy to look at the circumstances and see what can be done.

Laura Sandys: What measures will we put in place to support the French at the G20 on food security? It is an issue that links foreign policy with prices in supermarkets for my constituents.

Henry Bellingham: We welcome the French presidency’s aim to tackle high food prices through the G20. Since 2010, prices have pushed 44 million more people across the world into poverty and they are being driven fundamentally by a shortage of supply and increased demand. I urge countries such as Sudan and Zimbabwe, which used to be net exporters of food, to start producing food again, not least for their own people.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Secretary of State will be aware of the case of my constituent, David Petrie, who is one of a number of British citizens who, for more than 20 years, have been trying to secure equal pay under their European rights in Italy. I understand that the Minister for Europe will meet his Italian counterparts in a few days’ time. Will he take up this case again and try to bring the sorry saga to a conclusion?

David Lidington: Yes, I intend to visit Italy in the next week and this is certainly one of the items that will be on the agenda for discussion.

Rory Stewart: Will the Foreign Secretary please confirm the UK’s policy on the use of Predator drones and, in particular, its legal and moral basis?

William Hague: Our policy is that the use of drones is a matter for the Governments of the United States and Pakistan.

Ian Lavery: Will the Foreign Secretary join me in welcoming the release of the Iranian trade unionist, Mansour Osanloo? Despite this encouraging step, Iranian trade unionists Reza Shahabi and Ebrahim Madadi are still in jail in Iran simply for belonging to a trade union. Will the Foreign Secretary agree to meet me and other interested MPs on this issue?

William Hague: This is another example of the appalling human rights record of the Iranian Government. Either I or one of my ministerial colleagues will meet the hon. Gentleman, if that is acceptable to him. Iran’s human rights record has deteriorated steadily, even throughout this year. There are more journalists in prison in Iran than in any other country. The two leading opposition leaders have been detained. It is an appalling record of human rights abuse and the hon. Gentleman gives just another one of those instances.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the worrying situation in South Sudan and the considerable increase in violence in the disputed states of Abyei, South Kordofan and Unity, which are of course the subject of talks today in Addis Ababa between the Presidents of north and South Sudan, the former President of South Africa and the President of Ethiopia?

Henry Bellingham: I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concern. That is why we have called on all parties to end this violence, to respect their humanitarian responsibilities and to allow access to urgently needed international assistance. It is essential they take action and do so immediately.

Katy Clark: The Minister will be aware of the legislation passed in March in Egypt restricting the right to strike and criminalising protests. Will the Government raise concerns with the Egyptian authorities about restrictions on the right to protest and to take part in industrial action?

William Hague: This is the kind of issue that I discussed with Egyptian authorities on my visit to Cairo last week. Clearly, we want to see a much more normal state of affairs in Egypt. We hope that the onset of elections and greater political freedom will bring that about. People having basic rights, including those to which the hon. Lady refers, is an important part of that.

Jo Swinson: Europe stands united in condemnation of the atrocities perpetrated by the Syrian regime, but progress in getting the Security Council similarly to declare condemnation of these abuses is frustratingly slow. The support of countries such as Brazil, South Africa and India could reduce the likelihood of a Russian or Chinese veto, which highlights the importance of these emerging powers. What steps are the Government taking to strengthen further the ties between Britain and the emerging powers, in terms not just of trade but of shared interests, such as human rights?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the wider conclusion about the need to elevate these bilateral relationships. A good example of that is the UK-South Africa bilateral forum that we held here in London on Thursday, which included four South African Ministers discussing with their counterparts from the UK a whole range of issues and emphasising in particular the shared values between our country and a country such as South Africa. We will take forward that work energetically in the years ahead.

Clive Efford: Last week, many of us met constituents who took the time to have tea with us and discuss overseas aid. Many Members of Parliament have been concerned for many years about aid in return for trade. Will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department would never get involved in negotiations about overseas aid, in line with the commitment to give 0.7% of gross domestic product in overseas aid, in return for the privatisation of public utilities or contracts for British companies?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman might want to ask this question at International Development questions to get the authoritative answer. As he knows, across the House we are in favour of giving development aid on its merits and not for the kind of deals or arrangements that he talks about.

Richard Fuller: The recent elections in Nigeria exceeded international expectations as a fair process and a true democratic choice. Will the Minister encourage the Nigerian Government to extend that in the business sphere by tackling corruption and supporting a pro-entrepreneurship agenda, as that is the best way to secure a true and economic future for the Nigerian people?

Henry Bellingham: I had the opportunity of representing Her Majesty’s Government at President Goodluck Jonathan’s inauguration in Abuja last month and I was very struck by his determination to root out corruption, to lift the burdens on business and, above all else, to put in place a road map for oil and power sector reform.

Nigel Dodds: Can the Minister update the House on the progress that has been made in getting Palestinian leaders, including in Hamas, to recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist?

William Hague: Clearly, at the moment Hamas does not recognise the right of Israel to exist. Hamas will remain a proscribed organisation from our point of view until it commits itself to a negotiated solution and a peaceful approach. The criteria that we apply to the new Palestinian Authority are those that I set out to the House earlier and last week, including accepting the previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Dominic Raab: What discussions were had with President Obama when he was here concerning recent US calls for negotiation on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? Was he persuaded to support democracy in the south Atlantic as well as in the middle east?

William Hague: There was no discussion about the Falkland Islands with President Obama on his recent visit. The UK’s position remains absolutely the same as it has been under successive Governments since 1982 and it will not change.

Fiona O'Donnell: Ahead of Channel 4’s screening this evening of “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”, what recent assessment have the Secretary of State or Ministers made of the credibility of the
	Sri Lankan Government’s lessons learned and reconciliation commission and its new deadline to report in November this year?
	[Official Report, 16 June 2011, Vol. 529, c. 9-10MC.]

Alistair Burt: I spoke this morning to the Foreign Secretary of Sri Lanka, who had the opportunity to update me on some positive measures that were being taken in relation to Jaffna. I was in a position to remind him of the importance of having a credible and independent investigation of the various allegations that are now very much on the table from the United Nations and others. It is essential that those are dealt with. We note the new timetable for the LLRC to report in November, but, however long this takes, it will not be possible for Sri Lanka to move forward unless it has addressed some of the horrors of the past.

Greg Hands: Returning to the western Balkans, the Foreign Secretary will be aware of the large and growing Serbian expatriate community in London. What positive message can we send to them about the prospect of visa requirements being eased in future and about how and when Serbia could eventually join the European Union?

David Lidington: As my hon. Friend knows, British visa requirements are a matter for the Home Office, and Serbia’s wish for visa liberalisation will be considered by Home Office Ministers when they next review the visa waiver scheme. I think that the message to Serbia is that this country strongly supports its ambitions to join the European Union and wishes President Tadic every success in taking through the very demanding programme of reforms that will be needed for it to meet the conditions for entry.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. We are very time-constrained. Brevity is of the essence.

Mike Gapes: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of why his German counterpart went to Benghazi and said that the German Government were now recognising the transitional Government there? Does that represent a welcome shift in Germany’s position, given that the Germans abstained on Security Council resolution 1973 and opposed NATO action?

William Hague: Actually, Germany has been supportive of what we have been doing. Although, as the hon. Gentleman points out, Germany abstained in the Security Council in March, it has since then been part of the contact group, and the German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, attended the London conference that I hosted at the end of March. Although Germany has not made a military contribution to the NATO effort, it has been helpful in many other ways and given political support to what we are doing. What the hon. Gentleman points out is further evidence of that consistent approach.

Robert Buckland: In far too many parts of the world, freedom of religion and belief either does not exist or is being severely undermined. Will my right hon. Friend establish a commission on freedom of religious belief to advise the Government on these important issues?

William Hague: I have already established a human rights advisory group, and at its second meeting last week we had a specific discussion about that very subject—freedom of religion and freedom of worship. The Foreign Office paper for that discussion will be discussed at a Wilton Park conference to be held shortly. This is a vitally important subject in which the Foreign Office and many other people are now engaged.

Ann Clwyd: The Foreign Secretary said that he had a conversation with the Crown Prince of Bahrain and that he is in favour of dialogue. It is all very well saying that, both here and in the United States, but at the same time the Government in Bahrain are crushing dissidents and locking up the people who should be part of the dialogue.

William Hague: The right hon. Lady makes a very powerful point. The point I make in return is that, yes, we should be highly critical and condemn human rights abuses in Bahrain, but it is very important for us to play what role we can in encouraging the most constructive and moderate figures on both sides of the sectarian divide in Bahrain to make a success of the national dialogue that is now meant to resume on 1 July. The Crown Prince made a sincere effort in that dialogue at the beginning of the crisis, and I should like to see the moderate members of the regime do so again.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, interest has exceeded the time available and we must now move on.

Waste Review

Jamie Reed: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on the waste review in England.

Caroline Spelman: Apropos of the written ministerial statement listed on today’s Order Paper, I have laid in the Library copies of the waste review, to which we received 1,800 responses.
	The Government’s waste review has looked at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England. We want to make it easier for people to do the right thing and recycle more, so today’s review is good news for householders, businesses, councils and industry.
	We will make it easier for people to recycle, and we will tackle measures introduced by the previous Government that encouraged councils specifically to cut the scope of collections. We will remove the criminal sanctions applying to householders, so that households are not menaced for simple mistakes. We also propose to introduce a “harm to local amenity” test to tackle “neighbours from hell”, ensuring that enforcement is targeted at those who deliberately and persistently break the law.
	The review is good for business. We are abolishing landfill allowance trading schemes, because they create a perverse incentive for local authorities not to collect waste from business. We are giving them certainty about landfill tax; the escalator will move annually by £8 to a floor of £80 by 2015. We are announcing a voluntary agreement so that small and medium-sized enterprises can better access recycling services. We are providing business with a clear signal that energy from waste will be a key technology in the future.
	Today’s review is good for the environment. We will start consulting on restricting wood waste from landfill and go on to review the feasibility of bans on metal, textiles and biodegradable waste. We shall also consult on increased recycling targets, to 2017, for packaging waste.
	The review changes the way we look at waste by unlocking the economic opportunities for transforming waste into resource. We have set out a clear direction for cutting landfill, preventing waste and increasing recycling.

Jamie Reed: That is barely credible, and it is no wonder that DEFRA is rapidly being seen as the equivalent of the mad woman in the attic. As usual, today’s announcement was spun to the media before it was laid before Parliament. Among the spin was yet another broken promise, this time on weekly bin collections. The Secretaries of State for both DEFRA and Communities and Local Government spent their time in opposition promising the public that weekly bin collections would be introduced, but today we discover that this is not the case. Before the election the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said, to much acclaim from his own party:
	“It’s a basic right”—
	I emphasise the words “a basic right”—
	“for every English man and woman to be able to put the remnants of their chicken tikka masala in their bin without having to wait a fortnight for it to be collected.”
	Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain why the Government’s position has changed. Is she happy that the waste review contains no recycling targets at all for England, and that the UK’s recycling commitments under the European Union’s waste framework directive will therefore be met on the backs of recycling targets in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? Is that right?
	Will the right hon. Lady also tell us why she chose, on becoming Secretary of State, to abandon the Labour Government’s consultation on stopping wood going to landfill, only to waste a year and today reintroduce it? Instead of taking the chance to boost recycling, reduce waste and create jobs, the Government have abandoned Labour’s target of moving to a zero waste Britain. Under the previous Government recycling increased from 10% to 40%, but there is still more to do.
	Today’s announcement fails to establish a framework for the green growth that the country needs and through which thousands of green jobs could be created. The waste review is a huge missed opportunity that looks set to do little for our environment or our economy. The Secretary of State should explain why it took so long and looks set to deliver so little.

Caroline Spelman: First, I wish to make it clear that the written ministerial statement was available to Members before I spoke to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management. Of course the Government will work with all parties to increase recycling rates, but the recycling target is a European one of reducing waste by 50% by 2020. I am confident that we are on target. This is a devolved matter for the other nations.
	It is a bit rich, coming from the Opposition, who had 13 years to get to grips with landfill. They could, if they had so wanted, have got on and banned wood, materials, textiles and metals. I fear that the Opposition are still in denial about the dreadful economic legacy that they left to the Government.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks about green growth. I have just spoken to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and shared with them the fact that we estimate that there will be a growth of 3% or 4% per annum in green jobs through the waste industry because of the positive framework that we are setting out to help people do what they want to do—the right thing: waste less and recycle more.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State laid before the House today. May I share with her the fact that the district council serving my part of north Yorkshire will be well on its way to meeting the target that she has set. There will obviously be some perverse implications from abolishing LATS—landfill allowance trading schemes—because rural communities have done very well out of that.
	I welcome the fact that anaerobic digestion is to be increased. It deals primarily with waste food. What are the implications for other energy from waste facilities in the next few years?

Caroline Spelman: I thank the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her warm welcome for the Government’s waste review and her recognition that LATS fulfilled a role whose impact the landfill tax has largely overtaken in helping us reduce the amount that goes to landfill.
	At the same time as publishing the waste review, I have published the Government’s anaerobic digestion strategy. We see the future for anaerobic digestion as very important. The Select Committee Chairman makes an important point. It is not just food waste that can be used as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion, and we must be careful that food crops are not caught as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. We should be using waste.

Joan Ruddock: I suspect that the Communities Secretary eats rather more chicken tikka masala than the right hon. Lady. Does she agree that the chicken tikka masala remains would be much better put into a food collection than into a black sack? Will she make some progress on further recycling? What does she think of the Friends of the Earth target, which I very much support, of halving black sack waste by 2020?

Caroline Spelman: I have to feed teenagers who are rather partial to chicken tikka masala, and there is very little left at the end of the day. The Government will be working with local councils to increase the frequency and quality of rubbish collections and make it easier to recycle, to tackle measures that encourage councils specifically to cut the scope of collections and to support them where they wish to provide a weekly collection for smelly waste.

Andrew George: I welcome the publication of the review today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to address the challenge of the regularity of waste collection, we need particularly to look at pages 58 onwards of the report in relation to the management of food waste? What will the Government be doing to reassure people that we will meet ambitious targets to reduce food waste going into the chain?

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask colleagues to ask short questions. There is a lot of interest and there is little time.

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for a question that obviously shows that he has read the review. He will know that it contains the startling fact that we waste £12 billion-worth of food a year, which we can ill afford to do. We need to work with all involved in food production and packaging to try to minimise the amount of food waste.

Ben Bradshaw: Why is the right hon. Lady sparing the blushes of the Communities Secretary? Was it not always nonsense for a Government to pay lip service to localism but then to try to force local authorities to reintroduce weekly collections? Will she confirm that most of the local authorities that have alternate weekly collections are Conservative-controlled, and that there is a strong correlation between high recycling rates and alternate weekly collections?

Caroline Spelman: It is important to encourage councils to respond to what local people want and need. That is the very essence of localism. Therefore, we will proceed with a new commitment from councils to redouble their efforts to listen and respond to the wishes of their residents on refuse collection.

John Redwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unacceptable to have rotting food waste hanging around for up to two weeks in bins, and will she tell councils that she hopes that they will have at least weekly collections so that we do not have the danger and risk of that situation?

Caroline Spelman: I said in response to an earlier question from the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that we believe that it is important to support local authorities that want to provide a weekly collection of the smelly part of the waste, and DEFRA will make available £10 million to assist them in that.

Christopher Leslie: The Secretary of State is obviously quite adept at U-turns, but why is she so selfishly hanging on to this U-turn when she could have let the Communities Secretary make his very own U-turn today?

Caroline Spelman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are a coalition Government, a Government of two parties, and he might like to read the coalition agreement commitment that said the Government will
	“work towards a ‘zero waste’ economy, encourage councils to pay people to recycle, and work to reduce littering.”
	There will also be measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion as set out in our review today.

Paul Beresford: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for her flexibility, in contrast to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). My local authority works with the private sector and provides a two-weekly service, but a weekly food waste service. The key factor has been the flexibility of a good contract with the private sector. Does she agree that those local authorities that have been dogmatic about not using competitive tendering should think again?

Caroline Spelman: I agree with my hon. Friend that waste services are a matter for local authorities and that they should develop fit-for-purpose local solutions. However, the Government believe that better procurement and joint working can improve the efficiency of collections while improving the front-line service for the public in an affordable and practical manner.

Paul Farrelly: Five years ago the Conservatives in Newcastle-under-Lyme made exactly the same promise on weekly collections and then promptly broke it. They then spent £2.5 million with their Liberal Democrat friends on a complicated recycling scheme with 10 different bins, boxes and bags, which has turned Newcastle into a curiosity. They now cannot afford to reinstate weekly collections—

Mr Speaker: Order. I did appeal for short questions.

Paul Farrelly: rose —

Mr Speaker: One sentence.

Paul Farrelly: Is the Government’s pickle over this not reflective of—[ Interruption . ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.

Caroline Spelman: The most important message is that the Government are trying to make it easier for people to do the right thing. Whether they are at home dealing with household refuse, at work or on the go, we need to make it easier for them to waste less and recycle more.

Ian Swales: Does the Secretary of State accept that developing technologies can turn waste into biofuels and chemicals? Will she encourage such plans and support those currently being put forward by INEOS at Seal Sands on Teesside?

Caroline Spelman: I am not aware of the specific technology being developed by INEOS, but I would be delighted to learn more about it. It is important that we embrace all new technology. I have today mentioned anaerobic digestion, for which I have set out a strategy, but new technologies are coming on stream all the time to turn waste into resources and we should explore them all.

John Woodcock: It is all very well hiding behind the language of local choice, but the Government promised that they would bring back weekly bin collections across the country. Will the Secretary of State apologise to families who have been led up the garden path by what she said?

Caroline Spelman: I have made it clear that the coalition consists of two parties that struck an agreement, including on provisions relating to waste, which we are fulfilling today. I have set that out very clearly.

Justin Tomlinson: In stark contrast to the strong-arm tactics of the previous Government, in what ways has the Secretary of State encouraged incentives to drive up recycling rates?

Caroline Spelman: Absolutely. This is such an important point. The previous Government, with their punitive approach, lost public confidence by punishing a little old lady for making the genuine mistake of putting the wrong waste in a recycling container. They lost the plot. Today, we are restoring a proportionate response to the penalties that should apply and are going after the real waste criminals.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady is acting as a human shield for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—I have heard that no Liberal Democrat is available to do the job. One of the key issues at local level that encourages cleaner communities is the proper containerisation of waste, particularly trade and household waste. Will she confirm that the fines that councils can impose on businesses will be retained, and what does she suggest to a council—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful.

Caroline Spelman: There were perverse incentives in the regime in place under the previous Government. As I have mentioned, LATS actually deterred the collection and recycling of business waste, so their abolition, which was a coalition agreement commitment, will
	re-incentivise councils to collect and recycle more business waste. We want to help to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, to benefit.

Therese Coffey: In contrast to Cumbria’s recycling rate of 37%, Suffolk’s is more than 60%, no doubt helped by regular weekly food waste collections. We are also giving planning permission for anaerobic digestion. Will the Secretary of State work with me to ensure that the Department of Energy and Climate Change gets through those issues so that more such facilities are available across the country?

Caroline Spelman: It is right to applaud householders and the way they have actively become involved in trying to increase recycling rates. That is what people want to do, and the Government’s job is to make it easier for them, including through food waste collections if that is what local people want. I have already said that we will support authorities that do that and I will work with DECC to make that easier.

Bill Esterson: If the cuts mean that councils cannot collect rubbish once a week, what chance is there for the NHS or other services?

Caroline Spelman: I am not the Secretary of State for Health, but I think that the hon. Gentleman, just like everyone in his party, is still in a complete state of denial about the mess in which it left the nation’s finances.

Anne Main: I welcome the fact that small businesses can now have their collected waste count towards recycling targets. Will my right hon. Friend therefore lobby her friends in DECC in the hope of introducing a renewables obligation certificate for recycled cooking oil that could be used as a biofuel?

Caroline Spelman: I will of course discuss that possibility with DECC. The DCLG, DECC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills work together very closely, and that is helpful in drawing together this review.

Andrew Love: I have the largest incinerator in the country in my constituency, and it reaches the end of its useful life in 2014. The replacement anaerobic digestion plant was cancelled because private finance initiative credits were withdrawn. What reassurance can you give to my constituents that your strategy will lead to the ending of incineration in my constituency?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have no strategy on this matter, but the Secretary of State might.

Caroline Spelman: I have made it clear that energy from waste has its place in turning waste into resources. I have also made it crystal clear today that the Government are committed to helping local authorities that want to use anaerobic digestion, and we will make funds available to achieve that.

Harriett Baldwin: Will the Secretary of State congratulate Malvern Hills district council and Wychavon district council? The former
	kept weekly bin collections, the latter moved to two-weekly bin collections, and both were recently soundly re-elected as Conservative councils for a further four-year term.

Caroline Spelman: That demonstrates that good local authorities that respond to the wishes and needs of their residents and supply refuse collection services of good quality and sufficient frequency receive their reward through the ballot box and are returned to office.

Tom Blenkinsop: In the Secretary of State’s opinion, does the Prime Minister require a weekly bin collection to dump rubbish policies such as the NHS reforms?

Caroline Spelman: I do not think that that is a proper question about the waste review. The Prime Minister enjoys a very good refuse collection service in his Oxfordshire constituency.

Vernon Coaker: If the Secretary of State wants to meet her waste targets and tackle recycling, why has the availability of feed-in tariffs been reduced?

Caroline Spelman: That is more accurately a question for DECC, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses his question to a Minister from that Department.

NHS Future Forum

Andrew Lansley: With permission, Mr Speaker, and further to the written ministerial statement I laid in the House earlier today, I wish to make a statement on the Government’s response to the NHS Future Forum.
	We established the independent Future Forum on 6 April, under the chairmanship of Professor Steve Field, to look again at our proposals on the modernisation of the NHS. Yesterday it published its report and recommendations. I would like to thank Professor Field and his 44 senior colleagues from across health and social care who have worked so hard these past eight weeks. I would also like to thank more than 8,000 members of the public, health professionals and representatives from some 250 stakeholder organisations who attended some 250 events across the country—and also the tens of thousands who wrote to us with their views. I want also, if I may, to thank the many officials in my Department who supported this unprecedented engagement across the country.
	Two months ago, I said to the House that we would pause, listen, reflect and improve our plans. Our commitment to engage and improve the Bill has been genuine and has been rewarded with an independent, expert and immensely valuable report and recommendations from the Future Forum. I can tell the House that we will ask the forum to continue its work, including looking at the implementation of proposals in areas including education and training and public health.
	In his report, Professor Field set out clearly that the NHS must change if it is to respond to challenges and realise the opportunities of more preventive, personalised, integrated and effective care. The forum said that the principles of NHS modernisation were supported: to put patients at the heart of care, to focus on quality and outcomes for patients, and to give clinicians a central role in commissioning health services.
	The forum set out to make proposals for improving the Bill and its implementation, to provide reassurance and safeguards, and to recommend changes where needed. As Professor Field put it, it did this not to resist change, but to embrace it, guided by the values of the NHS and a relentless focus on the provision of high-quality care and improved outcomes for patients.
	We accept the NHS Future Forum’s core recommendations. We will make significant changes to implement those recommendations and, in some cases, offer further specific assurances that have been sought. There are many proposed changes and we will publish a more detailed response shortly. However, I would now like to tell the House some of the main changes that we will make.
	The Bill will make it clear that the Secretary of State has a duty to promote a comprehensive health service, as in the National Health Service Act 1946, and is accountable for securing its provision and for the oversight of the national bodies charged with doing so. We will also place duties on the Secretary of State to maintain a system for professional education and training within the health service, and to promote research.
	One of the most vital areas of modernisation to get right is the commissioning of local services. For commissioning to be effective, the process of designing
	services must draw on a wide range of people, including clinicians, patients and patient groups, carers and charities. We will amend the Bill so that the governing body of every clinical commissioning group will have at least two lay members, one focusing on public and patient involvement and the other overseeing key elements of governance, such as audit, remuneration and managing conflicts of interest. Although we should not centrally prescribe the make-up of the governing body, it will have to include at least one registered nurse and one secondary care specialist doctor. To avoid any potential conflict of interest, neither should be employed by a local health provider. The governing bodies will meet in public and publish their minutes. The clinical commissioning groups will also have to publish details of all their contracts with health service providers.
	To support commissioning, the independent NHS commissioning board will host “clinical senates”, which will provide expert advice on the shape and fit of health care across wider areas of the country. Existing clinical networks will be developed and will advise on how specific services, such as those for cancer, stroke or mental health, can be better designed to provide integrated and effective care.
	Building on that multi-professional involvement, clinical commissioning groups will have a duty to promote integrated health and social care with regard to the needs of their users. To encourage greater integration between social care and public health, the boundaries of clinical commissioning groups should not normally cross those of local authorities. If they do, clinical commissioning groups will need to demonstrate to the NHS commissioning board a clear rationale for doing so in terms of benefit to patients.
	I have always said that I want there to be “no decision about me, without me” for patients when it comes to their care. The same—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us hear the Secretary of State’s statement with some courtesy.

Andrew Lansley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	We will further clarify the duties on the NHS commissioning board and clinical commissioning groups to involve patients, carers and the public. Commissioning groups will have to consult the public on their annual commissioning plans and involve them in any changes that would affect patient services.
	One of the main ways in which patients will influence the NHS is through the exercise of informed choice. We will amend the Bill to strengthen and emphasise the commissioners’ duty to promote patient choice. The choice of any qualified provider will be limited to areas where there is a national or local tariff, ensuring that competition is based solely on quality. The tariff development, alongside a best-value approach to tendered services, will safeguard against cherry-picking.
	Monitor’s core duty will be to protect and promote the interests of patients. We will remove its duty to promote competition as though that were an end in itself. Instead, it will be under a duty to support services integrated around the needs of patients and the continuous improvement of quality.
	It will have a power to tackle specific abuses and restrictions of competition that act against patients’ interests. Competition will be a means by which NHS commissioners are able to improve the quality of services for patients.
	We will keep the existing competition rules introduced by the last Government—the so-styled “Principles and rules for co-operation and competition”—and give them a firmer statutory underpinning. The co-operation and competition panel, which oversees the rules, will transfer to Monitor and retain its distinct identity. We will also amend the Bill to make it illegal for the Secretary of State or the regulator to encourage the growth of one type of provider over another. There must be a level playing field.
	We will strengthen the role of health and wellbeing boards in local councils, ensuring that they are involved throughout the commissioning process and that local health service plans are aligned with local health and wellbeing strategies.
	In a number of areas, we will make the timetable for change more flexible to ensure that no one is forced to take on new responsibilities before they are ready, while enabling those who are ready to make faster progress. If any of the remaining NHS trusts cannot meet foundation trust criteria by 2014, we will support them to achieve that subsequently. However, all NHS trusts will be required to become foundation trusts as soon as clinically feasible, with an agreed deadline for each trust.
	We will ensure a safe and robust transition for the education and training system. It is vital that change is introduced carefully and without creating instability, and we will take the time to get it right, as the Future Forum has recommended. During the transition, we will retain postgraduate deaneries and give them a clear home within the NHS family.
	The extension of “any qualified provider” will be phased carefully to reflect and support the availability of choice for patients. Strategic health authorities and primary care trusts will cease to exist in April 2013. By that date, all GP practices will be members of either a fully or partly authorised clinical commissioning group, or one in shadow form. There will be no two-tier NHS.
	However, individual clinical commissioning groups will not be authorised to take over any part of the commissioning budget until they are ready to do so. Individual GPs need not take managerial responsibility in a commissioning group if they do not want to, and April 2013 will not be a “drop dead” date for the new commissioners. Where a clinical commissioning group is not able to take on some or all aspects of commissioning, the local arms of the NHS commissioning board will commission on its behalf. Those groups that are keen to press on will not in any way be prevented from becoming fully authorised as soon as they are ready.
	I told the House on 4 April that we would secure proper scrutiny for any changes that we made to the Bill. In order to do that without trespassing on the House’s time to review the Bill as a whole on Report, we will ask the House to recommit the relevant parts of the Bill to a Public Bill Committee shortly.
	Through the recommendations of the NHS Future Forum and our response, we have demonstrated our willingness to listen and to improve our plans; to make big changes, and not to abandon the principles of reform, which the forum itself said were supported
	across the service. However, we are clear that the NHS is too important, and modernisation too vital, for us not to be sure of getting the legislation right. The service can adapt and improve as we modernise and change, but the legislation cannot be continuously changed. On the contrary, it must be an enduring structure and statement, so it must reflect our commitment to the NHS constitution and values and incorporate the safeguards and accountabilities that we require. It must protect and enhance patients’ rights and services, and it must be crystal clear about the duties and priorities that we will expect of all NHS bodies and local government in the future.
	Professor Field’s report says that it is time for the pause to end. Strengthened by the forum’s report and recommendations, we will now ask the House to re-engage with delivering the changes and modernisation that the NHS needs. I commend this statement to the House.

John Healey: I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement, although I learned more from the Prime Minister’s press conference than from the statement.
	Humiliating! The Health Secretary has had health policy taken out of his hands. He spent the last nine months telling anyone who criticised the Government’s health plans that they were wrong, and that they did not understand. Today, he admits that he is wrong. How can he argue for this latest blueprint for the biggest reorganisation in NHS history with any credibility or integrity? The man who messed up so badly last year is telling us how he will mess up next year too.
	Why no apology to NHS patients and staff for the wasted year of chaos, confusion and incompetence? Why no apology for breaking the coalition agreement to stop top-down reorganisations? Why no apology for patients, who are already beginning to see the NHS go backwards again because of this reorganisation? More than one in 10 people now waits 18 weeks for operations, three times the number of patients wait more than six weeks for tests, and casualty waits are at a six-year high.
	This is the first Prime Minister who has been forced to ask 45 experts for a report on how to protect the NHS from his own Government’s policies. Now he is reorganising his reorganisation. The Future Forum report yesterday was a demolition job on the Government’s misjudgments and mishandling of the health service. Why is he wasting £800 million on redundancy payments when some of the same people will be re-hired to do the same job? Why is he holding back £2 billion promised for patient care when it could fund 55,000 nurses? Why is he ploughing on with the Health and Social Care Bill when what he announced today could largely be done without legislation, and certainly without the risk and cost of the biggest reorganisation in NHS history?
	This is a political fix, not a proper plan for improving care for patients, or for a better or more efficient NHS that can meet the big challenges that it must face for the future. Make no mistake, today’s plans will mean that the NHS is mired in more complex bureaucracy, more confusion and more wasted cost in the years to come. In the battle of spin, with all parts of the divided Government claiming a win, the big losers will be NHS patients. The Opposition and the public will judge the Government on what they do, not on what they say.
	I lost track of the bureaucracy that the Health Secretary announced in his statement. Will he admit that this reorganisation creates five new national quangos, set to spend tens of billions of pounds? Will he admit that this reorganisation replaces one local body—the primary care trust—with at least five others, all of which will play a part in commissioning? Will he admit that the plans still cut hospitals loose from the NHS, with no limits on treating private patients while NHS patients wait longer, and no support from the NHS if they run into financial trouble? Will he admit that hospitals will no longer have the protection as a public service from the full force of competition law?
	What was a very bad Bill will still be a bad Bill. This House should be allowed to do its proper democratic job, as the only elected House, and scrutinise in full in Committee the whole Bill. At its heart, the Bill will still be the Tory long-term plan to see the NHS set up as a full-scale market, and the NHS broken up as a national public service, so that patients increasingly see the services on which they depend subject to the lottery of where they live.
	The public have rumbled the Prime Minister. They know that they cannot trust him with the NHS. Fewer than one in four now trusts him to keep his NHS promises, and more than half believe that the Conservative party’s plans for the NHS are just a way to privatise the health service. Today, the Government have recycled their plans for the NHS when they should have been scrapped. People are right to conclude that they cannot trust the Tories with our NHS.

Andrew Lansley: Well, I was hoping that, having got past the abuse, the right hon. Gentleman would tell us whether he agreed with the NHS Future Forum, but he did not even mention it. He welcomed the listening and engagement exercise that we announced—he said it was the right thing and that it would be good government to do it—but then when an independent group of experts reports and makes recommendations, he ignores it and says he will oppose the Bill regardless. He did not listen to what people in the NHS were saying. I think it was shameful how he dismissed everything that has happened over the past year as though it did not matter at all—a year in which the coalition Government said we would increase resources to the NHS. We have done that and are committing to investing an extra £11.5 billion in the NHS over the next four years. That is money that, as we will continue to remind the British public, the Labour party told us we should not give to the NHS.
	In the past year, the coalition Government and the NHS across the country have implemented a cancer drugs fund from which 2,500 more patients have benefited, and in the past four months, we have cut the number of breaches of the single-sex rule by three quarters, and the number of hospital infections by 22% and C. difficile infections by 15%. Some 750,000 more people are accessing dentistry, and waiting times for people going into hospital are down compared with March 2010. We said that we would reduce management costs, and we will do so, and we have taken 3,800 managers out of the NHS since the election, while the number of doctors has gone up. Six months ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that he supported the reform principles in the Bill. All he said today was sheer opportunism, but it will come back to haunt him, because the NHS will benefit from the
	changes we are proposing today. It will take greater ownership of its own service; patients will be empowered; and clinicians across the service will be empowered and will deliver better outcomes for patients, and when that happens, we will be able to say, “The Labour party would have denied the NHS the resources and the freedom and responsibility to deliver those better outcomes.”

Stephen Dorrell: Is not the key challenge facing the national health service today the need to reverse a decade of declining productivity bequeathed to us by the Labour party? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement today provides the basis for us to do that based on the evolution of effective commissioning engaging the entire clinical community, which will address the fragmentation of service and progress the integration of service around the needs of individual patients?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is precisely that process of engaging clinicians, who will come together to design services around the needs of patients in a way that delivers not just improving productivity, but improving quality of services for patients, that is at the heart of the shift from primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. Let’s face it: the Labour party spent a decade presiding over declining productivity, while the costs of bureaucracy and management in the NHS doubled. We will empower people in the NHS to deliver improving services and reduce bureaucracy. [ Interruption .]

Several hon. Members: rose — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Opposition Front-Bench team should not be yelling at the Secretary of State when he is answering. [Interruption.] Order. On both sides of the House, right hon. and hon. Members, whatever the passions they feel, need to simmer down just a little. A fine example of that calm and stoicism can now be provided by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson).

Frank Dobson: Does the Secretary of State recognise that forcing the national health service to start implementing his changes before the law had been changed has resulted in vast expense to the NHS, in chaos to services and in the diversion of NHS staff from the treatment of patients? Does he also recognise that just cobbling together a few amendments to the Bill will not make things better but worse? Will he not recognise—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to finish his sentence. We must press on.

Frank Dobson: Does the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I will have the question finished. I do not require any help from any Member.

Frank Dobson: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that pretending to produce a collaborative silk purse from a competitive pig’s ear will not work?

Andrew Lansley: It is slightly confusing, because the right hon. Gentleman’s right hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench, the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), was just telling us—erroneously—that we could have done this without legislation anyway, but now the right hon. Gentleman is accusing us of proceeding without legislation. It is not true: we are doing things in the NHS by way of changes that are absolutely essential in any case. I have to tell him and the House that sustaining the structure that we inherited from the Labour party, with all the strategic health authorities and all the primary care trusts—this vast bureaucracy— could never have happened. We had to take out administration costs in the service, and empower clinicians and patients, and we are doing it now regardless of whether the legislation has made progress.

John Pugh: I welcome the statement and the change. I have a list here. The Government’s response has satisfied 70% of the demands for change on that list, but it is seemingly not enough—nor can it be enough—because ironically, it is the list of amendments tabled by the Labour party in Committee. Why does the Secretary of State think that it is so hard to build consensus? Given that in many cases the amendments are ones that Labour has asked for, why is the Labour party being so pointlessly churlish?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are many things that are beyond many of us to understand. One of them is the Labour party and the way it approaches policy. As he and the House will know, the fact is that the Labour party has no policy; it simply had opposition for opposition’s sake.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to say two things. First, questions and answers must focus on the policy of the Government. That is the parliamentary position, and Members know it. Secondly—[ Interruption. ] Order. Secondly, I want to accommodate the level of interest in this statement, but Members must help me to help them, by being brief.

Ben Bradshaw: In fact, the last Labour Government left record low waiting times and record levels of public satisfaction with the NHS. I welcome the fact that Professor Steve Field has said what many of us in the Opposition have been saying for at least a year. How much has this year’s shambles cost the NHS, and how much has it damaged patient care?

Andrew Lansley: It has not damaged patient care. The right hon. Gentleman should not denigrate the NHS. In May 2010, at the last election, patients waiting to be admitted to hospital waited 8.4 weeks for their treatment; on the latest figures, that went down to 7.9 weeks. Out-patient waiting times for May 2010 were 4.3 weeks on average; that went down to 3.7 weeks, and that in the midst of rising demand on the NHS and continuously improving performance.

Sarah Wollaston: This is clear evidence of a listening Government. Does the Secretary of State agree that what the NHS now needs is consensus
	across all political parties, and for everybody to put their money where their mouth is and support the NHS and these changes as we move forward?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. The Future Forum made the point that what people across the NHS want now is the certainty of knowing what the policy is and to move forward to make that happen.

Alan Johnson: In view of the NHS Future Forum’s comments about the
	“importance and relevance of the NHS Constitution”
	in guiding its work, does the Secretary of State accept that the seven principles set out in the constitution were more effective in protecting the NHS from a hostile Government than the Prime Minister’s five pledges?

Andrew Lansley: No, I do not accept that. The Prime Minister’s commitments are absolutely what the public and the people working in the NHS expect and wish to see. They are vital, and they would not have been true under a Labour Government. For example, a Labour Government would not have increased resources for the NHS. The only part of the United Kingdom where there is now a Labour Government is Wales, where resources for the NHS are being cut this year by 5% in real terms compared with last year. When I went to north Wales in the middle of the recess, I saw on the front page of the Liverpool Daily Post that the number of patients waiting more than 36 weeks for their operations had risen from 16 to 989.

David Ruffley: I welcome the proposals, but will the Secretary of State give details of the safeguards against cherry-picking of the kind that, if unchecked, could fatally undermine rural district hospitals such as the West Suffolk hospital in my constituency?

Andrew Lansley: Yes; we have to ensure that commissioners are increasingly able to use a tariff involving an established national or local price to determine the service that they commission, and that that does not allow the private sector—or anyone else, for that matter—to cherry-pick services by undercutting on price. We also need to ensure that that price reflects the cost of the treatment for the conditions involved, including complex conditions. This is why we have committed to carry out work, not least with the Royal Colleges, to identify where we need to develop tariffs in order to ensure that that happens.

Gisela Stuart: I welcome the statement, not least because it pays tribute to the future of the NHS commission. What is the Secretary of State’s thinking on the forward planning for the commission?

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will interpret the hon. Lady’s question in relation to the NHS Future Forum. I freely acknowledge that I wish that we had instituted the Future Forum after the publication of the White Paper last year. Although we had a full, formal consultation process at the time, to which 6,000 people replied, the character of the engagement that has been achieved
	over the past two months has been superlative. As we make further progress on the development of education and training proposals, for example, I want to ask the NHS Future Forum to continue that process of engagement in that and other areas across the service.

Charles Walker: I have a great deal of time for most GPs—in particular for the one sitting in front of me, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)—but what part of the Bill would allow communities to rid themselves of underperforming GP practices?

Andrew Lansley: That would need to be initiated by the NHS commissioning board. Under the legislation, the board would respond to the health and wellbeing board in the local authority in question, or to the local clinical commissioning group. In my hon. Friend’s area of Hertfordshire, the health and wellbeing board will provide a new and powerful means by which the voice of the public can be expressed to challenge all the poor performance that occurs in the service.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that Members who came into the Chamber after the Secretary of State began his statement should not expect to be called?

Kevin Barron: The Secretary of State must know that the biggest threat to the stability of the national health service is the introduction of competition law into clinical services. Will the clause that says that the mergers of NHS trusts will be a matter for the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission be removed from the Bill?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Future Forum has recommended that the powers to be held by the Office of Fair Trading or the Competition Commission should be exercised by Monitor. That is because it believes it to be in the interest of the NHS for them to be exercised by a health service-specific regulator that is sympathetic to and has an understanding of NHS interests.

Andrew Bridgen: Primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are part of a top-down management structure that has led to waste and bureaucracy and tolerates poorer patient outcomes. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that they will be abolished, and that the £5 billion that that will save over this Parliament will be ploughed back into front-line medical services?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I can do that. It is essential to move to a world where we reduce administration costs, relieve bureaucracy in the service and free those providing services by offering them the resources to deliver improving care without the burden of bureaucracy, cost and waste inflicted by a Labour Government in the past.

Dennis Skinner: Does not the Secretary of State understand that when the Labour Government were in power, they increased spending
	from £33 billion to £111 billion in one decade, and that we are now witnessing, at a cost of £2 billion, a new Frankenstein monster all to pacify these tin-pot Liberals? Judas only got 30 pieces of silver.

Andrew Lansley: I have a mission for the hon. Gentleman— he should head to Wales. In England, this coalition Government have committed to increasing the NHS budget in real terms in the life of this Parliament. The King’s Fund reported the other week that in Wales, a Labour Government intend to reduce the NHS budget in real terms by over 8%.

Duncan Hames: I believe that the very act of listening to patients and the public will have done a lot to improve these proposals—as, I suspect, once the dust has settled, it will have done for the Health Secretary’s reputation, too. Given the requirement for greater local accountability in these proposals, will the right hon. Gentleman make the same recommendation to local clinical commissioners in the changes they are yet to make for health services in their areas?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, but I have to tell him that I am not looking to achieve anything in terms of reputation; I just want a positive outcome for the NHS. I have said before that this is not about me; it is about achieving for the NHS the opportunity to deliver better services for patients. That is all I am interested in.
	The proposals on public and patient involvement illustrate what we needed to do—and will now do in response to the Future Forum—as many people wanted to see set out in detail in the legislation how patient and public involvement would work in the respective NHS bodies. The legislation had set out the fact that these bodies existed, but the detail was not prescribed. There is always a balance to be struck in legislation between the degree of prescription and the degree of freedom. Clearly, through engagement with the NHS, we have approval for putting much more of the detail into the Bill, now that it is clear that it will engage patients and the public.

Kate Hoey: Along with the vast majority of the public, I welcome most of the changes announced today. I always welcome U-turns when they bring about the right thing. I am very concerned, however, that the bureaucracy that will be around after all these changes have gone through could be worse than what we have at the moment. I would genuinely like to be reassured on that point.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for the majority of the recommendations. The bureaucracy will reduce in the NHS as a consequence of the changes for one very simple reason—because we are shifting the ownership of commissioning and the responsibility for the design and delivery of services from what is essentially a distant managerial organisation into one that is locked into the clinical decision making of doctors and nurses across the service. Let us be clear: this is about delivering benefit to patients by empowering the doctors and nurses who care for them. That in itself will cut the bureaucracy.

Sajid Javid: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have no plans to decrease the budget for the NHS—unlike the plans of the Labour party to slash it by £30 billion?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point. If we had listened to the Labour party last year, we would have cut the NHS and would not have increased the resources going into it. The £20 billion efficiency savings required to respond to demand and cost would have been £30 billion, which would have put an unsupportable degree of pressure on the NHS. As it is, we are giving the NHS not only resources but the opportunity to deliver improving care.

Valerie Vaz: After the White Paper was published in July last year, 6,000 representations were received from health professionals and from the Select Committee on Health asking the Secretary of State to think again about breaking up the NHS, so this “listening exercise” has been a waste of public money. Either the Secretary of State was wrong then, or he is wrong now. Which is it?

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid I have to say that that was all nonsense. As the hon. Lady knows, we responded positively to the consultation last year and made changes then. However, as the details of the Bill have been emerging, people have been trying to work out how they will make it all work in the future. They have been saying, “We want to set out in the legislation precisely how it will work.” There is no better way of making that process effective than talking to people in the NHS, engaging with them, listening to them, and then implementing the changes.

Daniel Poulter: I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that the single biggest challenge facing health care in the United Kingdom is the economic and human challenge of looking after an ageing population. Does he also agree that the key to that is better integration of health care services—better integration of hospital services with community and social services—and that these reforms are a good way of going about that?

Andrew Lansley: I agree very much with that. The Future Forum’s report, particularly the part that deals with clinical advice and leadership, has given us a robust structure for engagement with the range of professions that are capable of delivering that kind of integrated, joined-up and more effective care.

Debbie Abrahams: Can the Secretary of State reassure us that no services or hospitals will be taken over by the private sector?

Andrew Lansley: There are no plans in the legislation or, indeed, in the Future Forum’s recommendations that would lead to that. In particular, as the hon. Lady will see in the detail published with the written ministerial statement this morning, we have proposed that Monitor should have no power to allow the private sector access to NHS facilities for reasons of competition and to take them away from NHS providers.

Peter Bone: We have a Prime Minister who loves the NHS, a Secretary of State who is the most experienced Member in the House when it comes to the NHS, and a coalition Government who have done something that the Labour Government never did. They listened, and they were willing to improve their Bill. This is a great day for democracy. I congratulate the Secretary of State on that, and on referring the Bill back to a Committee—and if he is looking for volunteers for the Committee, I am available.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is because I believe in the NHS and the people who work in the NHS that I think it right to listen to and engage with those people, and to give them much greater control of the service that they provide for patients.

Grahame Morris: What can we conclude from the fact that the Prime Minister is not here with us this afternoon to support the Secretary of State, but is involved in a PR stunt at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust? It was once said on the other side of the Atlantic that you could put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day it was still a pig. Is that not true of the Bill?

Mr Speaker: Order. We are starting to get involved in issues perhaps not of order, but certainly of taste.

Andrew Lansley: If you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, I do not think that I will favour that question with an answer.

Mark Lancaster: Will the Secretary of State expand on the support that organisations such as the Spinal Injuries Association can expect through specialised commissioning?

Andrew Lansley: I believe that as a result of our proposals the NHS commissioning board will be able to provide more consistency in much specialised commissioning, and I hope that that will apply to people with spinal injuries. I am well acquainted with the work of the Spinal Injuries Association: I think that it has done terrific work, and we have already worked closely with it in trying to ensure that we improve commissioning and services for those with spinal injuries.

Karl Turner: It is utterly disgraceful that Liberal Democrats and Tories are scrapping with each other to claim credit for the alleged listening exercise. Will the Secretary of State now apologise to my colleagues and me for not listening to us when the Bill was in Committee?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, in relation to the changes we are now bringing forward, I do indeed give credit to some of my colleagues—very much so—but I also give credit to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for the time and trouble they have taken; they have spent a great deal of time listening, and engaging with people across the health service. We give credit, too, to the NHS Future Forum and the thousands of people across the NHS who have now made their contribution to the NHS’s future, and I think they will be very
	disappointed to hear Opposition Members just wanting to denigrate that, and to make political capital out of it, rather than supporting the NHS in its future objectives.

Tony Baldry: GPs collectively throughout Oxfordshire told the Field commission that they wanted to get on with GP commissioning, and that they were wholeheartedly committed to it because they believed they could be catalysts for change and better design NHS services for local people. When are GPs in Oxfordshire going to be able to get on with GP commissioning?

Andrew Lansley: I can assure my hon. Friend that I know his local GPs, and that they want to work with their professional colleagues across their area and to get on with that now. We will continue to be able to delegate commissioning responsibilities to all commissioning groups who are ready to do that; if they show that they are ready, we can give them the capacity to do it through existing NHS structures.

Clive Efford: This is not a U-turn; it is a body-swerve around the Liberals. The Secretary of State has spent the last year telling us that cherry-picking for profit in the NHS will not be possible under his Bill, yet today’s report has told us that he must take action to prevent such cherry-picking. Does the Secretary of State understand that this is now an issue of trust, and that nobody trusts him on the NHS—made in Britain by Labour, stolen by the Tories, and given away to his fat cat friends?

Andrew Lansley: I will not attempt to compete with the hon. Gentleman on any driving analogies, but we have been clear that we will not countenance cherry-picking against NHS providers. The Future Forum has made recommendations on that, but they are not all to do with the Bill: for example, the processes I described of using a tariff lie outside the scope of the Bill. The Future Forum is making recommendations, and we are responding positively to them.

Dan Byles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the discourtesy and mock anger from Opposition Members demonstrate why it is so important to take politics out of the day-to-day running of the NHS, so that we avoid this sort of political football nonsense every time we try to implement sensible reforms of this vital public service?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that may be why Opposition Front-Bench Members have not told us whether they agree with the Future Forum. The truth is that they know they have to agree with it, because it makes good sense, but they are also trying not to let their political opportunity drift away from them. People will be deeply disappointed, and in some cases angry, that they cannot abandon trying to turn the NHS into a political football.

Michael Meacher: Will the new, revised GP consortia still be allowed to outsource commissioning, either in whole or in part, to private health care firms, many of them probably American, which would create a major conflict of interest?

Andrew Lansley: The clinical commissioning groups will be statutory bodies, and will therefore not be able to delegate the responsibility for such commissioning to any other organisation, including a private sector organisation.

Karen Bradley: My constituents will be reassured to hear the Secretary of State say that it remains the duty of the Secretary of State to deliver a comprehensive health service, but was that duty ever at risk?

Andrew Lansley: It was always clear that we would retain section 1(1) of the 1946 Act, which states that the Secretary of State will have a continuing duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England. What has been asked of us is that the Secretary of State should have not only that duty but a duty to secure the provision of that health service and an oversight responsibility in relation to the national bodies charged with providing it, and we will respond positively to that request.

Nicholas Dakin: This is a sorry tale of the Government going too far, too fast. What we have now is in danger of being a dog’s breakfast and the worst of all possible worlds. How much has this top-down reorganisation cost the UK taxpayer so far?

Andrew Lansley: The listening exercise has to date—on 14 June—cost £36,640.97. The process of modernisation in the NHS is saving hundreds of millions of pounds every month. We know that we have to not only increase resources to the NHS but deliver continuously improving productivity and efficiency in the NHS. The Labour party always ignored that and failed on that; we will not fail on that.

Simon Hughes: Today’s proposals are clearly winning the support of the health professionals and of political colleagues, but to win the support of the public and the patients I hope the Secretary of State will be able to give one further assurance that these plans will give greater local democratic accountability for the NHS than ever before and will therefore mean no enforced local privatisation of services, which happened under the previous Labour Government.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. He will know that in our response to the Future Forum we will strengthen the role of health and wellbeing boards, deliver more integrated care and ensure that the local health and wellbeing strategy is a central document in determining the shape of commissioning in the NHS, social care and public health. The powers, including those for service reconfiguration in an area, will be maintained so that they must continue to meet the four tests I set out last year. The public voice will therefore be at the forefront of the response to any changes in the local service.

Lyn Brown: Given that the Secretary of State is about to waste £2 billion on this reorganisation—money that would be better spent on patient care—will he give us an assessment of how many A and E departments will close over the next two years?

Andrew Lansley: That is pretty rich. When I became Secretary of State, I found that all over the country there were threats to accident and emergency departments and to maternity departments generated under a Labour Government. Let me tell the hon. Lady that this is about delivering continuously improving care and cutting costs. We set out very clearly that although there are costs involved in reorganisation, they will be recouped severalfold over the course of this Parliament, saving in total some £5 billion in reduced administration costs.

David Nuttall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that tens of thousands of families throughout my constituency are deeply concerned about the reduction of services at Fairfield hospital in Bury. Will any of the changes that my right hon. Friend has outlined enable that process to be reversed?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend and I have visited Fairfield hospital on a number of occasions and I have every sympathy with him and his constituents. He inherited as a Member of Parliament, as I did as Secretary of State, very advanced plans for changes to services at the hospital. What will now come to the forefront is the ability of the local authorities, through the health and wellbeing board and the clinical commissioning group, to bring clinical staff and the public together to say that in his area, north of Manchester, they can take greater ownership of the design of services to meet local needs.

Jim McGovern: I am sure that I am not the only Member who noticed that the title given to the urgent question required only one consonant to be added for us to use it for the ministerial statement: “Wasted Review”—[ Interruption. ] Wasted review—was that the sound of a large penny dropping? Given that the Minister is constantly dodging questions about the cost of the review, will he tell us how many nurses and doctors could have been put in post using the money the review cost?

Andrew Lansley: The latest figures on the changes in staffing in the NHS since the general election have shown a reduction of 3,800 managers, an increase of 2,500 in the number of doctors and no reduction in the number of nurses.

Charlie Elphicke: In Dover and Deal, we have dynamic GPs, many of whom want to get involved in commissioning, but not every GP wants to do so. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no individual GP will be forced to be involved in the work of the commissioning group and that that was always the case under his reforms?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Many GPs across the country understand that clinically led commissioning is the right thing to do, but they do not personally want to be involved in that process. There are, however, leaders who do, and leaders across the country have already come forward through pathfinder consortia and will be a basis on which we can create much greater clinical leadership across the service. The Future Forum was very clear that leadership from within the service, from doctors, nurses and other health professionals, will be instrumental in improving care in the future.

Chris Williamson: Everyone knows that the Conservatives opposed the introduction of the national health service and that they brought it to its knees when they were last in power. Now they are trying to undermine it by wrapping it up in bureaucracy. With waiting lists increasing, what assurances can the Secretary of State give the House that they will not increase further as a result of the measures he is bringing forward in the Bill?

Andrew Lansley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to or heard the Prime Minister when he made absolutely clear our commitment to keeping waiting times low. Not only did the Prime Minister make that commitment, but it is in the constitution. In practice, the opportunity for patients increasingly to see the performance of the hospitals to which they can choose to go will help to drive increases in performance. As I told the House in response to an earlier question, waiting times are now lower for in-patients and out-patients than at the time of the last election. I am also old enough to remember that in June 1944, Winston Churchill, as the leader of a coalition Government, went to the Royal College of Physicians and set out an ambition for a national health service that would give everybody in the country access to the highest quality health care, free for all, regardless of means.

Jeremy Lefroy: The Cure the NHS group, founded by Julie Bailey in Stafford, has rightly stressed the importance of a culture of caring and zero harm to patients—something that my right hon. Friend has always emphasised. How does he think the recommendations of Professor Field’s report will help with embedding such a culture across the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend knows, much can contribute to that change of culture, not least making safety one of the central domains for measuring outcomes in the NHS. In addition, it must be personal to each member of staff in the NHS that they have that responsibility. We have too often seen cases in which people have been professionally responsible but have not acted in line with that responsibility. A central part of what we need to do is not about organisations and structures but about creating that sense of personal responsibility in professionals across the service to look after their patients and those for whom they care and to blow the whistle if there is harm or abuse; and we must protect and secure that whistleblowing when it happens.

Helen Jones: The Secretary of State promised to reduce bureaucracy, but he has now spent more than £760 million on a botched reorganisation that gives us commissioning consortia, senates, a whole host of national quangos and PCTs being abolished to transfer their staff somewhere else. Is it not time he accepted that this is a botched reorganisation and withdrew the Bill?

Andrew Lansley: Most of that was pure invention, including all the numbers. We are going to save money with these changes to the NHS. We are going to transfer resources from bureaucracy, management and administration into front-line care. Through clinical commissioning groups
	we are going to empower staff in the NHS, and abolishing two tiers of management in the NHS will save us, in total, a third in real terms out of administration costs.

John Glen: Will the Secretary of State confirm that despite the existence of clinical senates the primary driving role in commissioning will remain with GPs, who know their patients best and know which services they require?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. General practice—not just general practitioners but general practice—has a central role for patients because there is a long-term relationship with patients and an understanding of the whole population and the health of a whole area. However, GPs recognise that in order to get the right services for patients, they have to design services alongside the range of professionals whose job it is to deliver them.

Ronnie Campbell: Let us be clear: this is just a dog’s dinner and these amendments have proved it. What we have here is a slow-privatisation-of-the-NHS Bill that is backed by the Rag, Tag and Bobtail party—the Liberal Democrats. This is the beginning of the privatisation of the health service and it is time it stopped.

Andrew Lansley: This Bill and our proposals were never to support privatisation; they are not to support privatisation and they will not be to support privatisation. The hon. Gentleman should have attacked the Labour Government who gave the private sector £250 million for operations it never carried out; they paid it 11% more than they would have paid the NHS for that. They tried to push the NHS out of the provision of services when it could have provided them and competed. The Labour Government did that, and we shall legislate to make it illegal for a Secretary of State or any regulator to engage in that kind of preferential treatment for the private sector in future.

Gavin Barwell: I welcome the revised proposals, in particular the focus on competition not as an end in itself but on informed—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Whatever feelings the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) entertains in relation to the Liberal Democrats, who seem unlikely to feature on his Christmas card list, I urge him to exercise what modicum of self-restraint he can muster in the circumstances.

Gavin Barwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I welcome the focus not on competition as an end in itself, but on informed patient choice to improve patient care. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, unlike the Opposition, the Government believe that NHS patients in my constituency deserve the best that the public, private and voluntary sectors can offer them?

Andrew Lansley: I understand. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely clear. We know that informed choice for patients is a serious contributory factor in improving outcomes for patients. When there is informed choice, of necessity we must have a diversity of providers to
	support it. There is no doubt that to that extent competition is an essential part of delivering improving care in the future, but it is not an end in itself. It should not be elevated to that point, over and above delivering the integrated services that best give patients the care they need.

Chris Bryant: My constituent Rosie Edwards suffers from a rare congenital heart condition, known as Fallot’s tetralogy. Fortunately, for all her life, both as a child and now as an adult, she has had to have all her treatment at the Royal Brompton hospital in London. Unfortunately, the Government are proposing that that paediatric cardiac service is terminated—[Hon. Members: “Not true.”] It is completely true. There is no provision in the suggestions that have been brought forward for the service to continue. My constituents are asking whether, if reorganisation will cost a lot of money, it would not be better to spend that money on protecting those services.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman tried to characterise that as he did. The joint committee of primary care trusts is conducting a consultation. The Government are not doing it; I am not doing it; the committee is doing it, and the consultation closes on 1 July. People across the country are quite properly making representations to the consultation, including on the Royal Brompton and other units. The committee has not made recommendations to me; it will come to its conclusions after that consultation, which has absolutely nothing to do with the structure of the proposals I am referring to today.

Steven Baker: My constituents will not be interested in hard left, old school scaremongering. They simply want to know whether the Bill will put local health services under a greater degree of local control.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that many of us in the House were deeply frustrated in the past that Ministers would say at the Dispatch Box that primary care trusts were responsible for local decisions, and then nobody found locally that the PCT was in any practical sense accountable to them or the population they represented. In future, there will be proper accountability: clinical accountability through the commissioning groups and democratic accountability through local authorities.

Angela Smith: Will the Secretary of State apologise to the people of this country for a botched process that will lead to nothing but chaos and confusion in the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: I think the hon. Lady should read the NHS Future Forum report where she will find that right across the service there is support for the principles we set out, and agreement that change is necessary. I do not know where she imagines that change will come from if not by going through a process of the kind we have engaged in.

David Rutley: Public health continues to be an important priority, particularly in Cheshire East which, surprisingly, is ranked 15th( )in the
	league table for hazardous drinking. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what remit he is giving the Future Forum in this important area?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Future Forum has made recommendations in relation to public health. One of them, which I announced today, is that we want to combine the direct integrated work on health protection and response to emergencies through Public Health England with continuing independence for expert advice, so I am proposing that Public Health England should be established as an executive agency. What is critical is that we create through the legislation a greater opportunity for local authorities to lead health improvement plans locally, so issues such as alcohol abuse and problem drinking will need not only national leadership, which we will give, but local leadership, which the Bill will empower.

Barbara Keeley: Accountability is not at all clear. The Secretary of State said that clinical accountability will be in one place and democratic accountability in another. We are replacing one organisation—the PCT—with five. My constituents will just want to know where the accountability lies for important local NHS decisions. That has not become clear from the statement so far.

Andrew Lansley: I repeat: from the public’s point of view, we know that what they wanted was genuine accountability, in the sense that the doctors, nurses and other health professionals who care for them should be able directly to design and influence the shape of services locally to meet their needs, but they also want a patient voice and a public voice. That has not existed in the past; we will enable it to happen. They will come together at the health and wellbeing board, where they will establish a strategy for their area.

Matthew Hancock: In the commendable listening exercise, was it not clear that there is now broad support for the principles of reform? Is it not better that we now take that forward, rather than being opposed to reform and opposed to the resources for the NHS, as the Opposition are?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is indeed the message that came through to us from the NHS Future Forum and its extensive engagement with the NHS and beyond. I will not go down the path urged on us by the Opposition, which for the NHS seems to be spend less, do nothing and let the crisis happen when it will.

Richard Burden: The Secretary of State is still talking about the Bill as if it is a way of promoting localism and local accountability, but is it not still the fact that most of the extension of locality commissioning that that would involve could happen without the Bill? I refer the Secretary of State to the role of the national commissioning board. What is that, if not a massive and bureaucratic centralisation of power?

Andrew Lansley: With respect, the hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. Without the legislation we could not transfer out of the hands of a managerial top-down
	bureaucracy into the hands of clinicians and local people, but he is right—it is not just the localisation of decision making. There is also in the NHS a nationally funded service with an expectation of national standards, and many services that require high levels of national consistency in commissioning. There is a job for the national commissioning board, which we will establish. That in itself will inject a considerable level of consistency in standards and quality, and considerable efficiency in commissioning some services.

David Morris: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his reforms. I know how hard he has worked and conducted consultation across the political spectrum. That should be respected by the Opposition. The reforms empower our medical practitioners—doctors and nurses—and in doing so, as I am sure he would agree, will stop the litigation culture that has galloped away over the past 13 years under the previous Government.

Andrew Lansley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. We need—not least in a further emphasis on safety and some of the other measures that we as a Government, including my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice, have said we would bring forward—to try to offset a rising tide of litigation and cost associated with clinical negligence cases in the NHS. My hon. Friend is kind to me about working hard. I never imagined I would not do so, but if I have worked hard over the past eight weeks, it is nothing compared to the leaders of the NHS Future Forum who, in the space of just eight weeks, produced excellent work which will be of enduring significance.

Alison McGovern: Last year, the NHS in Wirral tried to respond quickly to the Secretary of State’s top-down reorganisation and has since spent months in uncertainty and stress. Will the Secretary of State apologise now to staff and patients on the Wirral for all the unnecessary problems he has caused them and all the money he has wasted?

Andrew Lansley: I met many of the previous practice-based commissioning groups in the Wirral and south Merseyside, who came together to tell me how enthusiastic they were about the possibilities for designing clinical services more effectively in future. They are doing that. They want to get on with it and the Future Forum is right: we need to give them the opportunity to get on with that now.

Alun Cairns: What assurance can the Secretary of State give that his plans will abolish the rigged market introduced by the previous Government that ended up giving £250 million to the private sector for delivering nothing?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will legislate to stop precisely that distortion and that favouritism to the private sector. The private sector must know that it will have to provide additional services to the NHS on the basis of quality, not on the basis of any preferential system, as under the previous Government.

Joan Ruddock: I remember that under the previous Conservative Government people died while on waiting lists. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It is
	a fact. I was a Member of Parliament at the time and it happened. Labour’s targets transformed that. The Secretary of State has been forced today to retake responsibility for the delivery of the NHS. He has talked about what has been happening. Will he make a specific promise today about the future waiting lists under his jurisdiction?

Andrew Lansley: I will make clear to the right hon. Lady, as the Prime Minister has made clear, that we will not let waiting times rise. We will continue to maintain downward pressure, but it is very important that we do not treat waiting times in the NHS as the only measure of performance. It is more than that: it is the quality of care that is provided, not just the access to care.

Andrew George: I am very sorry to say that the Secretary of State demonstrated a creative interpretation of the coalition agreement when he launched his policy last July. What can he say to the House to reassure us that he will not make the same creative interpretation of the Future Forum’s recommendations, particularly in relation to the risk of the marketisation of health services?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know that when I came forward with the White Paper last year, or the Command Paper in December, or the Bill, we did so collectively as a Government, and I can assure him and all my colleagues that we will continue collectively to agree on the basis on which we take all these issues forward.

Kevin Brennan: Some say that the reason the Secretary of State went too far, too fast and has now come up with a fix that is too little, too late is that he has a bit of a tendency to be pig-headed and cloth-eared when people disagree with him. I do not agree with those who say that, but could he now find the humility and courage at least to say sorry for the mess he has made?

Andrew Lansley: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House of the wise stipulation in “Erskine May” that moderation and good humour are the defining features of parliamentary language.

Andrew Lansley: In that spirit I thank the hon. Gentleman for the generosity of his remarks and encourage him likewise to apologise for the performance of a Labour Government in Wales who are cutting the NHS budget by 5% and seeing the performance of health care in the NHS in Wales deteriorate considerably relative to that in England.

Harriett Baldwin: My constituency has borders with Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire. The NHS Future Forum has recommended that commissioning group boundaries should not normally cross local authority boundaries, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that my local commissioning consortia can work with doctors in other areas?

Andrew Lansley: The Future Forum is perfectly clear that there is a benefit associated with integrating health and social care if clinical commissioning groups do not
	normally cross local authority boundaries. But it is clear, and we are clear, that they should be able to make a case to do so if they think it appropriate. We have the benefit of being able to look at the pathfinder consortia, of which there are 220 and I think that 16 cross local authority boundaries, so it is already the exception rather than the rule.

Diana Johnson: Will the NHS be the preferred provider of choice for health care services for my constituents?

Andrew Lansley: No, I have said that we will legislate to ensure a level playing field, so her constituents should have access to whichever provider their clinical commissioning group views as best able to deliver quality care.

Christopher Pincher: The Government are incorporating the co-operation and competition panel into Monitor to advise the NHS on competition rules. Given that the Opposition seem to be engaged in collective amnesia this afternoon, will my right hon. Friend remind the House which party first established the CCP and the concept of competition in the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because, as the Future Forum report acknowledges, the Bill does not extend the application of competition rules in the NHS, which were introduced under the Labour Government. The co-operation and competition panel was established under the Labour Government in 2009. The rules that we will maintain as a process of evolution, rather than revolution, are the ones that were consulted on in January 2009 and most recently published by a Labour Government in March 2010. To that extent, and despite all the hot air from the Labour party on competition in the NHS, we are adopting an evolutionary approach and starting precisely from the situation that applied under the Labour Government.

Jeremy Corbyn: In his earlier answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), the Secretary of State, if I understood him correctly, said that commissioning consortia would have to do the commissioning themselves and could not franchise it out to private providers. Will he confirm that that is the case and that he has powers to limit the number of private patients who can be taken into NHS facilities under the regulations he is proposing in the Bill?

Andrew Lansley: I reiterate that the clinical commissioning groups will be statutory bodies with a statutory responsibility for commissioning, so it would not be legal for them to delegate that to another body that was not subject to the same obligations. As far as access to private patients is concerned, we have made it clear—I do not believe that the Future Forum makes any recommendations on this—that foundation trusts, which often have arbitrary rules relating to limits on their income from private patients, should have that cap lifted, but we propose to put additional safeguards in place to make it clear that, if they do so, not only must that income be separately accounted for so that there is
	no subsidisation from NHS facilities, but the trusts must demonstrate how that will support their continuing primary purpose of providing services to the NHS in England.

John Baron: Having very much supported the listening exercise, I know that for many of us the most important aspect of these reforms has always been the new focus on outcomes, as illustrated by the inclusion of the one and five-year cancer survival rates in the outcomes framework. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Future Forum’s suggestions will in no way detract from that new focus on the quality of care?

Andrew Lansley: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, I can go further and say that one of the reasons the Future Forum has made no recommendations on the outcomes framework is that it found enthusiasm across the NHS for focusing on quality and outcomes and nothing but approval for the framework. Of course, the Labour party ignores the fact that, as stated in the White Paper we published last year, that is one of the central aspects of what we are setting out to do. He is right that the focus on outcomes, which enables people to see how this country performs in health, relative to other countries, and continuous improvement in health outcomes, rather than just a small number of focused targets, is instrumental in continuous improvement.

Kate Green: The Secretary of State is aware of the situation faced by Trafford acute trust. Will he reassure my constituents that there is no prospect of Trafford General hospital being either broken up or taken over by a private company?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will have a further opportunity to discuss that shortly. She will know that the NHS trust in Trafford is examining whether it might merge with one of two possible foundation trusts and whether it might change its corporate configuration, as it were, but entirely within the NHS.

Andrew Percy: Last Friday, I met two members of the local Labour party in my constituency who presented me with an apparently independent petition on the NHS reforms. At that meeting, they told me that it was a fact that our reforms would lead to the removal of a comprehensive health service; we now know that that is a load of old nonsense. They also told me that it was a fact that these changes would open up the NHS to European Union competition law in a way that it is not at the moment. Is that a fact, or is it just shameless scaremongering?

Andrew Lansley: It is entirely scaremongering. My hon. Friend might like to look at what the Future Forum report says in relation to choice and competition, which sets out very clearly that the extent to which EU competition rules apply in the NHS will not change as a consequence of this Bill.

Tom Blenkinsop: So far, £768 million has been wasted on this failed reorganisation. In my region, Freeman hospital’s cardiac unit for children is under threat,
	South Tees Hospitals trust has had £20 million removed by the Government, and the Government are proposing a national commissioning board that sits in private, is unelected, produces no minutes, remunerates itself and sets its own sub-committees. Where is the front-line quality of care for people?

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid that that is a further repetition of invention by Labour Members, who appear to have been given one or two figures of their own. It is complete nonsense. In the impact assessment associated with the Bill, which we will now revise to reflect these changes, we explained that there was an estimated £1.4 billion total cost of reorganisation, but that that would lead to a £1.7 billion recurring annual benefit in savings, which would accumulate to more than £5 billion over the course of the Parliament.

Therese Coffey: Building on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), HealthEast pathfinder consortium in my constituency crosses two district councils—in fact, it crosses two counties—and it might be appropriate for GPs from a third council area to join it. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no barriers will be put in the way of what should be effective care for patients rather than simply political boundary lines?

Andrew Lansley: As I have said, we will expect, and the Future Forum says, that commissioning groups should not normally cross local authority boundaries—in this respect, boundaries for social authorities—but they should be able to make a case for doing so based on benefit to patients. The one thing I would urge is that they are very clear with their local authorities about how they can secure the continuing integration of health and social care at a local level.

Bill Esterson: Is not the reason the Secretary of State has so much support from the right wing of his party that they know that this will lead to privatisation of large parts of the NHS, as he confirmed in his answer on preferred suppliers?

Andrew Lansley: I hope that my colleagues would support me in saying that I have support from colleagues right across the coalition, because the coalition Government are supporting the NHS in enabling it to deliver improving services. That is what it is all about.

Edward Leigh: It is appropriate that I am last, because I come at this from a different direction from everybody else. Given that no extra cash is available—we know that—how will the watering down of Monitor’s duty to promote core competition help to deliver the efficiency gains that are the future of the NHS? How will the Secretary of State now achieve that?

Andrew Lansley: I say three things to my hon. Friend. First, let us be clear that there is £11.5 billion of additional cash available to the NHS over the course of this Parliament—but we have to use it better and deliver greater quality and effectiveness. The job of the commissioners and Monitor together is to deliver that—partly through tariff development in ensuring that they
	get those efficiencies by the price that they set, based on benchmark-to-best practice prices, but also through using their commissioning strength to design services. We all know that if we simply said every year to the NHS, “You must save money by cutting the price of what is paid to you”, its response would be to cut services, cut staffing or cut quality. In fact, achieving greater quality and effectiveness is about the redesign of clinical services—the transfer of services into the community and keeping people well at home rather than through emergency admissions to hospital. It is about clinical leadership and clinical redesign, and that is what these proposals will bring to the forefront.

Owen Smith: Given the Secretary of State’s manifest interest in Wales, I invite him to come to Wales to meet some Welsh patients with me to find out at first hand which party they trust to safeguard the heritage of the NHS—Labour or the Tories. I suspect that the answer would be revealing for him. How much Welsh taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this needless reorganisation of the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman must know that the money available to the NHS in Wales is available to the NHS in Wales, and that it is separate from England. The Labour Welsh Assembly Government have made their own decisions about the priority that they attach to the national health service in Wales, and the result is, as the King’s Fund says, that they plan to reduce its budget by 8.3% in real terms. We are going to increase the NHS budget in real terms. The result can be seen in waiting times, which we were talking about. In England, the proportion of patients admitted to hospital who are seen within 18 weeks, according to the latest data, is 89.6%. He might like to reflect on the fact that the figure for Wales is 64.5%.

Rosie Cooper: Although it has been difficult to hear during this debate, I would like to address my comments to the statement made by the Secretary of State.

Simon Burns: Question.

Rosie Cooper: Question, sorry. [ Interruption. ] Let us get to the point and stop playing around. The Secretary of State said in the statement that consortia will now have one nurse and one secondary care doctor and that:
	“To avoid any potential conflict of interest, neither should be employed by a local health provider.”
	How will the Secretary of State apply that rule to GPs? Would not the Secretary of State and his reforms be best described as like Schrodinger’s cat—in a state of uncertainty and both alive and dead at the same time?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady misses the point. If GPs were providers as well as providing primary medical services, they would be unable to make decisions about those responsibilities because of a conflict of interest. Of course, as primary medical services providers in their area, they are not commissioned by the clinical commissioning groups—if the hon. Lady is listening to the answer at all—because the commissioning of primary medical services is undertaken by the NHS commissioning board, not by the local groups.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Secretary of State accept that he would not be in the position he is in today had there been proper pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill? Will he recommend to his Cabinet colleagues that that process is used for all future legislation? It is a case of more haste, less speed.

Andrew Lansley: We as a coalition Government are engaging in more pre-legislative scrutiny than any of our predecessors. In this instance, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s proposition. What has been done by the NHS Future Forum could not conceivably have been achieved in pre-legislative scrutiny, because it was essentially about engaging people across the service in how we will implement principles that are widely supported across the service. It is very much of the here and now, rather than something that could have been done in advance.

Gregg McClymont: I ask the Secretary of State to answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. How much money has so far been outlaid on this NHS reorganisation?

Andrew Lansley: I have made it very clear that the impact assessment set out that we expect the total cost of the reorganisation—these figures will be revised because of the changes—to be about £1.4 billion, but that it will deliver recurring savings of £1.7 billion a year, leading to something approaching a £5 billion net saving in administration costs over the life of this Parliament.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. All 65 Back-Benchers who stayed in the Chamber and sought to catch my eye were successful in doing so. I hope that the House’s inquisitorial appetite has been satisfied on this matter, at any rate for today. I was going to come to the ten-minute rule motion, but not before we have entertained a point of order from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—nothing new there.

Point of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hate to do this, but yesterday, when questioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), you mentioned the fact that it would be inappropriate for a Minister to make announcements about changes to such an important policy as we have just discussed before they were made in the Chamber. Yet the Prime Minister went ahead, at 12 o’clock today, with a press conference at which large amounts of the statement were announced. There is no point in the House continuing to say that we deprecate this if we do not do something about it.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I well recall—I would have a serious problem with my short-term memory if I did not—the exchange that I had with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) yesterday. I made it clear that policy announcements should be made first to the House. The Government tabled a written ministerial statement this morning, which is not unprecedented but is a common practice, and there has been a full oral statement this afternoon. I hope that it has been noted, and is approved of by the House, that every Member who wanted to take part in the exchange had the opportunity to do so.

Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: No, I am going to leave it there. [Interruption.] No, I am not going to debate the issue with the hon. Gentleman. He and I have known each other a long time, and if he is dissatisfied, he can always contact me again. If he wants to pursue the matter on subsequent occasions, that opportunity will exist for him. [Interruption.] Order. I would not for one moment seek to deny him that opportunity, but I cannot have a debate with him on the Floor of the House. He has made his point, and I am happy to reflect on it further. If he feels strongly he will probably write to me, and who could deny him the chance to do so? However, today we really must move on to the 10-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) has been waiting patiently.

Private Landlords (Register and Duties)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.  23 )

Phil Wilson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a register of private landlords; to require private landlords to take certain actions in the event of anti-social behaviour by their tenants; to give additional powers to private landlords and local authorities in cases of anti-social behaviour by tenants; to establish a community fund to which private landlords must contribute; and for connected purposes.
	In every community, the number of private landlords and the size of the private sector are increasing. It has been estimated that, by 2020, 20% of the UK’s housing stock will be private lets. At the beginning of the 21st century, about 10 years ago, 3% to 4% of the housing stock in Sedgefield was private lets. Today the figure is about 11% or 12%. In inner-city areas of London such as Camden and Newham, it is as high as 30%. Shelter estimates that the proportion of households in private lets stands at 15%—an increase of 40% over five years. Such households with children have grown at an even faster rate, increasing by 16% in just 12 months.
	With proposed changes to homelessness legislation, cuts to housing and high house prices and deposits, private renting will be under increasing pressure, especially at the lower end of the market among the most vulnerable groups. The private rented sector is rife with problems. Some 36% of Shelter advice queries come from private renters, more than double the proportion in the population at large. Satisfaction is lower, and accommodation is more likely to be of a poor standard. According to Julie Rugg’s investigation of the private rented sector in 2008, 50% of privately rented properties failed to meet the decent homes standards.
	The expansion of buy-to-let lending over the past decade saw a much wider range of individuals become landlords, many of them with little or no experience, knowledge or understanding of their responsibilities and the complex legal framework of renting. In fact, the buy-to-let sector includes more than 650,000 homes that could have been in the owner-occupier market, and the fact that they are not has helped to force up house prices.
	Where there are high concentrations of private lets, some have caused a blight on the local community, especially in low-demand areas. In Sedgefield, where there are several ex-colliery villages with rows of terraced housing, private landlords have moved in. In some streets up to 40% or 50% of the properties are private lets. In others half the landlords are absentees, with some even living abroad. Over the past four years I have had numerous cases of private landlords who have neglected their properties and tenants. Antisocial behaviour has become a major problem in the affected areas, and some of the residents who have lived in the streets in question for years now do not feel part of the local community that they have known for a long time.
	Two areas of Sedgefield—Dean Bank in Ferryhill and an area of Chilton—have been designated selective licensing areas, in which private landlords have to sign up to special conditions and protocols. They have been successful, but more needs to be done.
	The basic problem is not private landlords. Some are a problem and some are very good landlords, but the vast majority are amateurs without the skills and wherewithal to deal with being a private landlord. The buy-to-let market has led to a huge increase in such landlords. The market has grown because people saw it as an opportunity to make capital gain, for example, from increased profits from the value of properties.
	To help the huge number of private landlords, it is in their interest for a national register to be set up. With satisfaction lower in the sector than in others, and problems with private renting leading so many people to seek advice, it is clear that private renting is not securing the needs of households and communities. The universal cover of a national register will be a significant help to local authorities in identifying and targeting rogue landlords, and in enabling better joint working between local authorities to tackle such landlords across multiple areas. Serial offenders could be struck off the list.
	In the immediate future, however, the private rented sector is under increasing pressure and there is a need to strengthen local authorities’ response to tackle rogue landlords and the many amateur landlords who need help as much as anything else. The purpose of the register would be distinct from licensing. It would be mandatory and its purpose would be to enable local authorities to get a handle on the local private sector so that they can work with landlords. The register could be run by local authorities or housing associations, or it could be outsourced to a third party. A fee could be charged for administrative costs. Sanctions for failing to register could be preventing landlords from serving section 21 notices, rent payment orders or fines.
	The register could help local authorities to determine how many private landlords there are in a given area. If the number reaches a certain level, I believe that landlords should pay a community levy, especially in those areas where they dominate the housing stock. If people take out of the community, they should put back into it. If, for example, 25% of homes in a given area are private lets, or if one landlord owns several properties in an area, a community levy should be payable into a fund to put towards the upkeep of the area. Local people, in the spirit of localism, could decide how the fund is spent, whether to help with policing, environmental issues or whatever. Social landlords already do that, so why not private landlords? Again, the levy could be administered by a local authority, housing association or another arm’s length organisation. The more efficiently the community levy fund is administered, the more money will be available for investing in community programmes.
	If in nine years’ time—by 2020—one in five of our homes is a private let, the whole sector will need to be professionalised. The private rented sector is the only sector that is currently expanding. The sector is necessary, but it needs to live up to its responsibilities. I have seen that for myself in my communities.
	The sector needs regulation. Even the Rugg report says that market forces alone do not adequately police management quality in the sector. Therefore, intervention is required, not only for our communities, but for tenants and private sector landlords themselves. The Bill goes some way towards redressing the balance. In any event, I hope it raises what is a growing concern to many in the House, but more importantly, a growing concern to the people and communities whom we represent.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Phil Wilson, Tom Blenkinsop, Mrs Jenny Chapman, Nic Dakin, Lilian Greenwood, Graham Jones, Ian Mearns, Owen Smith, David Wright, Stella Creasy and Lyn Brown present the Bill.
	Phil Wilson accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 201) .

ARMED FORCES BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Ordered,
	That the Order of 10 January 2011 (Armed Forces Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions.
	Committee of the whole House
	3. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken on the first day and shall be taken in the following order: new Clauses and amendments relating to call out of reserve forces; Clauses 1 to 14; Schedule 1; Clauses 15 to 26; Schedule 2; Clauses 27 and 28; Schedule 3; Clause 29; Schedules 4 and 5; Clauses 30 to 33; remaining new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill.
	4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the first day.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	5. Any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day.
	6. Any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours before the moment of interruption on the second day.
	7. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of those proceedings or at the moment of interruption on the second day, whichever is the earlier.

Armed Forces Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr Roger Gale in the Chair]

New Clause 12
	Call out of reserve forces
	‘In section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (call out for certain operations), after subsection (1) insert—
	“(1A) Where—
	(a) work is approved in accordance with instructions issued by the Defence Council under the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations 1939 as being urgent work of national importance, and
	(b) the Defence Council have by order under those Regulations authorised members of any forces to be temporarily employed in such work,
	the Secretary of State may make an order authorising the calling out of members of a reserve force for the purposes of carrying out such work.”’.—(Mr Robathan.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Robathan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 14 and 15.

Andrew Robathan: The new clause reflects the importance that the Government place on their reserve forces, and amendments 14 and 15 are concomitant with it. The new clause is designed to align more closely the circumstances in which reservists may be called out in the United Kingdom with those in which regular personnel may be used. It would enable reservists to be deployed in the UK more widely than at present so that their skills can be used in a wider range of circumstances.
	Legislation has been in place for some time allowing our reserves to be called out to serve on warlike or humanitarian operations worldwide. Indeed, it is worth stressing that there have been more than 24,000 reservist mobilisations in support of operations both at home and overseas, including Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2003. I am sure that the Committee would wish to pay tribute to those reservists who have deployed on operations—with some losses, I fear. During those operations, 27 reservists have made the ultimate sacrifice.
	In the UK, local reserve troops were mobilised under existing legislation to provide assistance during the Cumbrian flooding in November 2009, and helped to build Barker bridge—so-called after the tragic death of Police Constable Barker during some of the worst UK flooding in living memory. This assistance could not have been provided so quickly and efficiently without the excellent support of reserves from the local Territorial Army unit. However, we do not have legislation in place to allow us to use the numbers of reserves available or their specialist skills in all appropriate circumstances. The Secretary of State’s power to call out reservists in the UK is currently limited by the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to the defence of the realm or
	“the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life and property in time of disaster or apprehended disaster.”
	There are many circumstances falling short of “disaster or apprehended disaster” in which reserves could make a valuable contribution, but under the existing legislation, they cannot be mobilised. I have in mind a number of examples. The first is the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001, when we could not call out reservists because the work that needed to be done was not to alleviate distress or preserve life or property. The second is a major disruption to the road and rail network, such as we saw at the beginning of this year, when reservists could not be mobilised to deliver vital food and blood supplies to a large number of people over a wide area, and when we had to resort at the last minute to volunteers. The final example is a requirement for unarmed, low-level support to the security operation for the London 2012 Olympic games. Currently in such circumstances, it would be possible to use regular forces because there is a power to use regulars for urgent work of national importance. This power has been used for a wide range of activities, such as dealing with the consequences of flooding, heath fires, severe snow, hurricanes and the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001.
	I propose to amend the 1996 Act so that reserve forces, like regular forces, can be called out for urgent work of national importance. The amendment represents an improvement to the existing position, where there is one test governing whether regulars can be used, and another slightly different test governing whether reserves can be mobilised. Being able to mobilise reserve forces would offer a number of important practical advantages. First, there are more than 30,000 committed individuals in the volunteer reserves. Secondly, reservists are based in every part of the UK and can bring to bear important local knowledge in relation to local problems. Thirdly, this would enable us to draw on a range of specialist skills held in the reserves that do not exist in the regular forces—for example, medical skills, meteorological expertise, and rail and maritime expertise. Over the last decade, we have seen the ever greater integration of the reserves into our force capability. The new clause is proposed in that developing context. The Future Reserves 2020 study, which will report to the Prime Minister this month, is taking a wider look at the role of the reserves and making better use of their specialist skills. I expect the study to recommend that we should make more of the strengths and skills that reservists offer. The new clause represents a first step towards that.
	Mobilisation is an essential tool for two reasons. First, it gives the Department the guarantee of the reservists’ service; secondly, it activates statutory employment and financial assistance safeguards for reservists and their employers. These help to minimise any disruption that mobilisation may cause. Under the new clause, as now, no reservist will be out of pocket as a result of mobilisation, and every employer will have the right to apply for financial assistance that will allow him temporarily to replace any member of staff who is mobilised. In addition, existing restrictions on both the length of mobilised service that an individual can be required to undertake and the frequency of mobilisation will apply. Furthermore, reservists and their employers will be able to appeal against mobilisation under the proposed new power, just as they can under existing powers. There is also a further appeal to a tribunal that will be independent from the Ministry of Defence. In reality, the MOD works with employers to identify potential concerns at the earliest stage and support the employer throughout.
	I hope that I have covered the major implications and benefits of the new clause. Let me stress that this change to the legislation strengthens the role of reservists in our armed forces and society more widely.
	Government amendment 14 provides that the provisions in the Bill relating to the call-out of reserve forces will come into effect two months after it receives Royal Assent. That is the standard period of time for bringing provisions into force, and we see no need to deviate from the norm in this case. Government amendment 15 changes the long title of the Bill. The amendment is necessary because the new provision about the call-out of reserve forces is a subject that would not be covered by the long title as it stands.

Gemma Doyle: Let me begin by paying tribute to the men and women who serve our country as reservists. They show immense dedication to serving our country. As the Minister said, we have only to look at the vital role played by reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan to understand the importance of reserve forces.
	The Government are undertaking a review into the future of reserve forces. If we are to believe what we read in the newspapers, reservists are likely to be given greater responsibility in the coming years. Indeed, the logical conclusion to draw from the strategic defence and security review is that we must seek to make the most of the assets that we have, and that includes the reserve forces. In bringing forward these amendments, the Government are perhaps pre-empting the conclusion of that review. The amendments give the Secretary of State greater powers to call in reservists. That is something that, in principle, we are more than happy to support; indeed, the Minister gave some good examples of the circumstances in which such powers would be useful. However, the Government need to be honest with the men and women of the reserve forces. If they are to ask them to do more, they also need to provide the necessary protection and support in the workplace. We are talking about people who join up to serve their country, and we have a duty to protect their jobs when they are mobilised. It is in this area that there are some questions for the Government to answer.
	We know that the Secretary of State is not necessarily on the best of terms with the Prime Minister and his other Cabinet colleagues. I wonder whether there is much joined-up thinking taking place in Government about the role of reservists and the duty of care that we owe them. The Cabinet Office has a Red Tape Challenge website, which consults the public on legislation that could or should be scrapped. When launching the site, the Prime Minister wrote to all Ministers to say:
	“We know we have inherited far too much costly, pointless, and illiberal government red tape.”
	In the employment law section of the website, item No. 1 in the list of legislation up for being scrapped is the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. The Act states that reservists have a liability to be mobilised and provides two kinds of protection. The first is protection of employment, providing protection from unfair dismissal and making it a criminal offence for an employer to terminate a reservist’s job without their consent solely or mainly because he or she has a liability to be mobilised. Secondly, there is a right to reinstatement. The Act provides a legal right to the reservist to be reinstated in their former job, subject to
	certain conditions. When pressed on this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) at the most recent Defence questions, the Secretary of State refused to deny that those provisions were under consideration. The Government are therefore considering scrapping legislation that protects reserved forces employment on a day-to-day basis and when on a tour of duty.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Lady is making a good point, but I have to say that I am unsighted of the 1985 Act. I thought that it had been superseded by the Reserve Forces Act 1996. She obviously knows a great deal about this, but I thought that that was where the current regulations sat. Will she illuminate the matter for the Committee?

Gemma Doyle: Unfortunately, the Secretary of State did not make that clear when asked about this matter. If he or the Minister could give the Committee a concrete commitment on the protection of employment for reservists today, that would be very welcome. It cannot be right for the Government to consider asking more of the men and women of our reserve forces while cutting the protection that they need in their place of work. Will the Minister make an unequivocal commitment not to scrap the vital protection provided by the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 or, if he believes that it has been superseded, will he clarify the position? We support the new clause, but the Government must be clear about retaining the support and protection that the reserve forces expect and deserve.

Mark Lancaster: I should like to speak briefly in support of new clause 12, but I must start by declaring my interest as a member of the reserve forces.
	My understanding of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 is that it contains three separate sections under which a reservist may be mobilised: section 52, under which no one has been mobilised to date; section 54, which involves war fighting, and under which I was mobilised to Afghanistan; and section 56, to which the new clause relates directly, and under which I have previously been mobilised to Kosovo and Bosnia. I want to underline the points that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) made in his opening remarks. It might seem odd that I am supporting a new clause that could result in my being mobilised even more often, but this amendment to the Act is long overdue.
	Speaking from my experience as an explosive ordnance disposal operator, I want to add to the examples that the Committee has already been given. During 2003-04, under Operation Telic in Iraq, we found that as the threat from improvised explosive devices continued to grow, the call on our EOD operators also increased. The Committee might be aware that, here in the UK, we continue regularly to dig up world war two munitions. That constant threat is covered by a 24-hour operation known as Operation Midway, which is based in Wimbish, in Cambridgeshire.
	The problem that we faced in 2004 was that, as the threat of IEDs grew in Iraq, our qualified bomb disposal officers were slowly being drawn out into theatre and we
	were struggling to cover the UK threat. Under section 56, members of the Territorial Army were mobilised to go and sit in Wimbish to cover the Operation Midway threat. It might surprise the Committee that most munitions are normally dug up on a Friday afternoon. They are invariably found on building sites, although probably not on a Friday afternoon. No one wants to interrupt the works, however, so the munitions magically seem to turn up on a Friday afternoon, which is an ideal time for the members of the Territorial Army who come in to play at weekends to deal with the munitions.
	The terms of section 56 are clear. Subsection (1)(a) states that a reservist may be mobilised only
	“on operations outside the United Kingdom for the protection of life or property”.
	Clearly, the UK disposal of munitions under Operation Midway does not count in that regard. Subsection (1)(b) states that a reservist may be mobilised
	“on operations anywhere in the world for the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life or property in time of disaster or apprehended disaster.”
	Now the problem was that although that might cover UK operations at the time, was it fair to say that the potential digging up of a world war two munition in London was a potential disaster? It was very much a grey area. What tended to happen was that people were mobilised under section 56; they sat in Wimbish for a number of months and then, right at the end of their mobilisation, they would be deployed out to theatre in Iraq simply so they could be “covered” under the mobilisation. That was obviously nonsense, which is why I believe it is so important for the Government to introduce the new clause so that in such specialised situations—along with examples that the Minister provided—we can allow reservists’ actions to continue.
	I would like to pick up on a couple of points that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) made about protection of the reserve forces. We must be careful when we use these powers. Few people in the reserve forces are not prepared to be mobilised, but when we start mobilising people for the second, third or fourth time, reservists are forced to answer an important question: are they prepared to give up their first career for a second career? Protections are in place so reservists can go back to resume their employment, but many employers, who might be incredibly supportive of the reserve forces, sometimes feel quite strongly about who they should promote.

Sandra Osborne: Does the hon. Gentleman feel from his personal experience that if people are constantly going to be asked to serve, it could act as a disincentive to joining the reserve forces?

Mark Lancaster: I am making the point that we must be careful how we use these powers. The point I was coming on to was that an employer might have to give the job back to an employee who has been away on mobilised service, but he does not necessarily have to promote him. Who is going to be promoted—the person permanently at work or the person who comes and goes every two or three years? I support the extension of these powers, but I add the caveat that we must be very
	careful how we use them. We should not use them in a manner that could act as a disincentive along the lines that the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) suggested.

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we should be careful how we use these powers. Does he agree that we should also be careful how we communicate them to potential employers, so that they know exactly how the powers might be used and will not disadvantage people in the reserve forces?

Mark Lancaster: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I would like to commend both this Government and previous ones for the amount of support they have offered to SaBRE—the organisation that does so much to communicate with reservists’ employers.
	My final point, on which I seek some reassurance from the Minister, is that the new clause will make no amendments to section 57 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, which deals with the duration for which a member of the reserve forces can be mobilised. Although it is a fairly complicated clause, the basic point is that a member of the armed forces can be mobilised for a maximum of nine months beyond their enlistment. If I read it correctly, that means mobilisation could run for a period of three years and nine months. It is unlikely that that has ever happened—I know of no example of it happening—but given what the new clause is intended to do for localised UK operations that are likely to be short in their enduring operation, I would ask whether the Minister is happy about the absence of any amendment to section 57 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

Elfyn Llwyd: I, too, pay tribute to the work of the reserve forces. Some time ago I was in Iraq and I was pleasantly surprised to see that the commanding officer at Baghdad airport was a reservist. Much good work is done by the men and women of the reserve forces. No doubt there will be greater calls on their time in the future, bearing in mind the likelihood of an announcement in the coming week or two.
	Subject to what the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) said, I think the amending provisions are perfectly reasonable. Indeed, if we think of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, they are perhaps overdue. Unfortunately, we in the United Kingdom are subject to increasing natural disasters, with which I am sure the men and women of the reserve forces are more than adequately equipped to deal. They may well prove a useful addition to the powers that we already have to deal with what are, unfortunately, frequently occurring natural events.
	Subject to the points raised by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, I think that the new clause and amendments are perfectly reasonable, and that the Government were right to table them.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and to other Members who have spoken for their generous support.
	I do not know where the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) gets her ideas. As far as I am aware—and I have seen them together—the Secretary of State is on very good terms with the Prime
	Minister and, I am sure, with his other Cabinet colleagues. They are probably on better terms than the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), and the leader of the Labour party, although I am not sure about that. It is just what I read in the newspapers. Perhaps I am wrong, because one should not believe everything that one reads in the newspapers. When I last said that at the Dispatch Box I got into terrible trouble, not least because a newspaper correspondent was sitting in the Press Gallery. He wrote about me in a way that was not entirely polite. Anyway, I am sure that my right hon. Friends are on very good terms.
	I can confirm that the new clause has been discussed with other Departments, and I understand that it has been cleared by the Cabinet, but it was discussed in particular by the Home Office, which deals with civil contingencies. I do not think that the hon. Lady need worry about that. As for the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, I will write to her about it, but I can tell her now that we have absolutely no intention of removing employment protection from reservists. Unlike the hon. Lady, I am not an authority on the Act, but I will write to her—I am looking at my officials now—to confirm that there is no intention of repealing the Act. The protection must, of course, continue.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), on the basis of personal experience. He gave the excellent example of Operation Midway, of which I had not known because, needless to say, it took place under the last Administration. As for the duration of deployment, I think that were we to deploy any reservist for three years and nine months, the House would have quite a lot to say about it. I am not minded to change the legislation, but I do not believe that circumstances would ever arise—apart from general war, which I hope we are not expecting—that required the mobilisation of people for that length of time. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is smiling. I hope that we are not expecting it, and I do not think we are, at least not in the review.

Chris Bryant: We are not.

Andrew Robathan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his confirmation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 31
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendment made: 14, page29,line3,at end insert—
	‘(1A) Section [Call out of reserve forces] comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.’.—(Mr Robathan.)
	Title
	Amendment made: 15, line4, after ‘Naval Medical Compassionate Fund Act 1915;’ insert ‘to make provision about the call out of reserve forces;’.—(Mr Robathan.)
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Armed forces covenant report

Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 5, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert
	‘Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 16, page2,leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert—
	(a) education;
	(b) accommodation;
	(c) healthcare;
	(d) mental healthcare;
	(e) pensions and benefits;
	(f) employment and training;
	(g) support for reservists and their employers;
	(h) the running of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme;
	(i) progress on Armed Forces rehabilitation services; and
	(j) such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine.’.
	Amendment 3, page2,leave out line 11 and insert ‘including—
	(a) the operation of section 359C (Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter),
	(aa) the operation of section 359D (Former Armed Services Personnel Support Officers),
	(ab) the operation of section 359E (Financial Support for Former Armed Services Personnel Welfare Groups),
	(ac) the operation of section 359F (Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum),
	(ad) the effect of the following issues upon service people—
	(i) welfare benefits;
	(ii) housing;
	(iii) healthcare;
	(iv) education, including educational courses and training;
	(v) employment advice;
	(vi) budgetary and life skills;
	(vii) debt management;
	(viii) alcohol and drug treatment;
	(ix) relationship skills/domestic violence courses for perpetrators and victims; and’.
	Amendment 17, page2,line11,after ‘housing’, insert—
	‘(aa) in the operation of inquests’.
	Government amendments 11, 12 and 13
	Amendment 4, page2,line12,at end insert—
	‘(2A) The report shall include expert recommendations on improving the welfare of former armed services personnel.
	(2B) Expert recommendations shall include a timeframe in which these recommendations should be implemented.
	(2C) If the Secretary of State will not implement any of the expert recommendations as directed then he shall lay a report before Parliament explaining why they have not been implemented, within 40 days of the laying of the armed forces covenant report.’.
	New clause 2—Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel
	‘After section 359A of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—
	“359B Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel
	(1) A Minister shall be appointed within the Cabinet Office who shall be known as the Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel.
	(2) The roles and responsibility of the Minister shall be set out by the Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office by order and shall include—
	(a) Laying the Annual Armed Forces Covenant Report, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Defence.
	(b) Conducting such activities as shall be seen to be positive for the well-being of former armed services personnel.
	(c) Conducting detailed and independently verifiable research to establish a baseline on which future progress can be measured.
	(3) The Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel shall be appointed within three months of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.”.’.
	New clause 3—Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter
	‘After section 359B of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—
	“359C Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter
	(1) A Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be published, indicating the rights to assistance that former armed services personnel shall expect.
	(2) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be made by a Minister of the Crown by order made by statutory instrument and include—
	(a) the requirement to undergo a psychological assessment immediately prior to leaving the armed forces,
	(b) the requirement of a resettlement assessment, conducted approximately six months prior to the expected date of discharge,
	(c) the requirement of access to advice from relevant voluntary organisations, approximately three to four months prior to the expected date of discharge, regarding the following possible needs—
	(i) welfare;
	(ii) housing;
	(iii) educational course and training;
	(iv) employment advice;
	(v) budgetary and life skills;
	(vi) debt management;
	(vii) alcohol and drug treatment; and
	(viii) relationship skills/domestic violence courses.
	(d) the requirement of back up support and advice, provided in person, by telephone and other reasonable means, to all former armed services personnel at any point within the first six months following discharge,
	(e) the requirement of tailored support for former armed services personnel in the criminal justice system,
	(f) any other relevant assistance considered necessary by the Minister in pursuit of the improvements in former armed services personnel welfare.
	(3) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be published following consultation with relevant stakeholders.
	(4) “Relevant stakeholders” includes members of veterans’ support agencies.
	(5) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be introduced within one year of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.
	(6) The operation of the Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.
	New clause 4—Former armed services personnel support officers
	‘After section 359C of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—
	“359D Former Armed Services Personnel Support Officers
	(1) A former armed services personnel support officer post shall be appointed in each prison and probation service in England and Wales.
	(2) The role of the former armed services personnel support officer shall be to ensure continuation of support in the criminal justice system.
	(3) Former armed services personnel support officers shall be appointed within one year of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.
	(4) The operation of the former armed services personnel support officers shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.
	New clause 5—Financial support for former armed services personnel welfare groups
	‘After section 359D of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—
	“359E Financial Support for Former Armed Services Personnel Welfare Groups
	(1) Financial support shall be provided for former armed services personnel welfare groups in each financial year to provided assistance to former armed services personnel.
	(2) Former armed services personnel welfare groups eligible for such financial support shall be those approved by the Minister.
	(3) The criterion for such eligibility shall be published by the Minister following an independent scoping study into the needs of former armed services personnel and the services currently available which will provide a baseline for future progress.
	(4) The independent scoping study shall be published not later than one year after the Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.
	(5) The operation of the Financial Support for Armed Services Personnel Welfare Groups shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.
	New clause 6—Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum
	‘After section 359E of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—
	“359F Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum
	(1) A Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall be created to ensure best practice in the treatment and discussion of veterans’ welfare issues.
	(2) The Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall have membership comprising representatives of the statutory, private and voluntary sector.
	(3) The chair and members of the Former Armed Services Personnel Policy forum shall be appointed by the Secretary of State following consultation with relevant stakeholders and shall include a government representative.
	(4) The criterion for membership and responsibilities of the veterans’ policy forum shall be determined by the Secretary of State following consultation with relevant stakeholders.
	(5) “Relevant stakeholders” shall include Ministers in devolved legislatures and veterans’ support agencies.
	(6) The Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall report from time to time to the relevant authority.
	(7) “Relevant authority” means Ministers responsible for the implementation of policies relating to veterans’ welfare, including Ministers in devolved administrations.
	(8) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights’ Policy Forum shall be introduced within one year of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.
	(9) The operation of the Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.
	New clause 13—Armed Forces Advocates
	‘After section 359 of AFA 2006 insert—
	“359B Armed Forces Advocates
	(1) The existing network of Armed Forces Advocates will be extended through the nomination of supporting advocates at regional and local level to ensure that local authorities work together to identify and resolve issues in local policy or the delivery of services that may affect service people.
	(2) In this section “Armed Forces Advocate” means public servant nominated to monitor and resolve policy or legislative issues that arise for service people.”.’.
	New clause 14—Duties of ombudsmen and Covenant commitments
	‘After section 359 of AFA 2006 insert—
	“359C Duties of Ombudsmen and Covenant commitments
	‘The Parliamentary and Local Government Ombudsmen shall have the duty to investigate complaints from service personnel that a public body or local authority has failed to meet the commitments outlined in the ‘The Armed Forces Covenant’ and ‘The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow’.”.’.
	New clause 17—Duties of public bodies and Ministers
	‘(1) In preparing policy, public bodies and Ministers must have regard to those matters to which the Secretary of State is to have regard in preparing an armed forces covenant report, under subsection (2A) of section 359A of AFA 2006.
	(2) In preparing policy, public bodies and Ministers must consider whether the making of special provision for service people or particular descriptions of service people would be justified.’.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am pleased to be able to speak to the amendments, but also rather baffled by the fact that I was unable to raise my points earlier. Although I spoke on Second Reading and expressed a strong interest in being involved in the earlier Committee stage, I was unfortunately denied that opportunity. For the first time in the current Parliament, the number of Members dealing with a Bill in a Select Committee was reduced so that a representative of a minority party would not be present. I am sure that my disappointment is shared by my colleagues the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson). Be that as it may, however, I am very glad to have been given the opportunity to speak.
	My amendments and new clauses focus on the need to strengthen the provision of welfare for veterans of the armed forces, an issue on which I have been campaigning in the House and outside for a number of years. They would establish a more robust structure of support for personnel leaving the forces, and would ensure that veterans were not disadvantaged in any way when trying to gain access to public services as a result of the service that they had given. They were heavily influenced by the recommendations made by the justice unions parliamentary group on veterans in the criminal justice system, of which I am chair. They also deal with the need to enshrine the military covenant in law, a move that I am glad to hear that the Government will be making in the coming months via the Bill. I hoped to see a little more detail about the covenant in the Government amendments, given that the devil is always in the detail, but the Government have at least acknowledged the need to uphold, maintain and develop further that all-important relationship between our armed forces and the public.
	My amendments set out what we in the justice unions parliamentary group believe is a firm course of action to tackle the problems faced by vulnerable veterans, and it is my earnest hope that the Committee will give them due consideration. New clause 2 and amendment 2 seek to introduce a Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel, who would sit in the Cabinet Office and among whose responsibilities would be the laying of the armed forces report before Parliament each year. Most important, the Minister’s remit would extend across
	Departments, and he or she would therefore be ideally placed to tackle veterans’ issues, needs and priorities in an holistic way.
	The Bill provides for the armed forces report to be laid by the Secretary of State for Defence. I mean to cause no offence whatsoever to the present Secretary of State in arguing that a Minister with such a wide remit cannot possibly hope to dedicate as much attention to that document as I believe it deserves, and that the report should therefore be written by someone whose sole ministerial responsibility lies with veterans’ welfare and who will not be unduly compromised—in the strict sense—by other vested interests.
	Amendment 3 seeks to broaden the remit of the armed forces report, and is relevant to a number of new clauses to which I will return briefly later. Amendment 16, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), makes many of the same points. My recommendations were made before the earlier Committee stage, from which I was excluded, but I am glad that they can be raised in the Chamber now.
	As Members will know, the Bill specifies that an armed forces covenant report shall be laid before Parliament each year, and shall cover the effects had by membership, or former membership, of the armed forces seen in the fields of health care, education, and housing. Let me make the genuine observation that that is a welcome step, given that the regulation of the services available to veterans is a prerequisite for improvement of those services. I believe that the proposed report’s remits do not go far enough, however. My amendments demand that they inquire in greater depth into how having a military service background affects personnel in obtaining public services. The report should not simply discuss education, housing and health care; I have specified that it should also cover other subjects, including welfare benefits, employment advice, budgetary and life skills, debt management, alcohol and drug treatment and relationship skills.
	The most important amendment is that stipulating a series of issues to be covered in the armed forces report as, crucially, it demands that it covers far more areas. In the Select Committee, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire said that
	“Tony Stables of the Confederation of British Service and Ex Service Organisations—from the armed forces families federations and from the Forces Pension Society”—
	wanted the list of subjects covered by the report to be extended and that there was disappointment about their appearing to be limited to only three. I appreciate that the Secretary of State will have the power to increase the number of subjects if he desires, but, to put it simply, there is no point legislating for an armed forces report to be laid before Parliament if it provides only a limited vision of the problems it needs to address. The bare fact is that veterans do not often encounter these problems in isolation, as the factors that contribute to social estrangement are far more likely to be encountered as a package. Often, although not always, these problems arise contemporaneously; for example, employment advice cannot be fully given without due consideration also being given to debt management, further training, re-skilling and housing.
	When personnel leave the armed forces, they will almost certainly need to find a job, as the services tend to recruit their personnel at a young age, and they often retire from the services long before standard retirement age. Little advice or provision in respect of resettlement is given to service leavers, however, particularly if they have served for fewer than four years, although that largely depends on details such as their regiment and where they are stationed. This problem is particularly stark for early service leavers, and studies have shown that they are at far greater risk of suicide, substance misuse, debt, crime and homelessness. That is why it is so important that the covenant and its associated reports pertain to all veterans regardless of the period of time for which they have served.

Chris Bryant: For the record, I think it is a shame that the full range of views in the House were not represented on the Committee in question because a Member such as the right hon. Gentleman was unable to serve on it.
	New clause 3 states that there should be a requirement to undergo a psychological assessment immediately prior to leaving the armed forces. Does the right hon. Gentleman that think there would also be value in making sure there is a psychological assessment on entering the armed forces, as many of the young men and women who enter the armed forces have psychological needs, and they ought to be met while they are serving members, and not considered only when they leave?

Elfyn Llwyd: That is a sensible suggestion, and I am pleased that it is on the record. The hon. Gentleman is right that such tests should be undertaken.

Oliver Heald: Having served on Committees with the right hon. Gentleman, I know that he always makes an important contribution. On the question of whether his proposal is the best way of ensuring all disadvantages are covered by the report, does he share my concern that by listing all the various areas, he may, in some sense, be prescribing them, and that it would be better instead to leave some discretion with the Secretary of State to be able to look at any disadvantage and report on that, because it is hard to predict exactly where such disadvantages may lie?

Elfyn Llwyd: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman makes that point with complete sincerity, but the Secretary of State can look at further areas in any case; he is not limited to dealing with only certain areas. One matter is of concern to me, however, especially from having spoken to representatives of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. Not so long ago, I spoke with a gentleman who told me that about 70% of the work he does is debt management, and, unfortunately, drug and alcohol abuse are also big issues. I felt that by specifying these areas, they could at least be identified. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, so the Secretary of State would not be prevented from looking at other issues. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes and appreciate the way in which he expressed it, but I do not think listing would necessarily cause any harm.
	SSAFA suggests that debt management is one of the greatest problems facing former armed services personnel, since being in the military provides stable employment for them. Armed forces personnel are thus able to
	access relatively high levels of credit, although little or no training is given to them on how to control their finances. On leaving the forces without proper financial management training, problems with debt can easily arise, and lead to homelessness and crime.
	When leaving the forces, an individual is officially made homeless. Former servicemen and women—although it should be pointed out that this problem is primarily associated with men—often end up relying on relatives or friends for temporary accommodation, putting strains on relationships in the process. If they are unable to gain employment, the patience of their relatives may wear thin, while, perversely, an inability to provide a permanent address decreases the likelihood of their finding a job. Ex-servicemen are thus catapulted into a vicious circle of social exclusion, which can be tackled only by strengthening the advice available to them prior to discharge. I shall briefly return to this point.
	Equally importantly, the armed services report must give an account of how service life can increase the likelihood of people turning to drug and alcohol abuse. Post-traumatic stress disorder receives much attention in the press, but it is alcohol and other substance addictions that present the most significant threat to veterans’ mental health. Regrettably, anecdotal evidence suggests that at certain stages of Army life, alcohol is treated as a catalyst to unwinding—or, to use the fashionable phrase, self-medication.

Chris Bryant: Unlike in Parliament!

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes, as the hon. Gentleman humorously says, unlike in Parliament, but let me return to my serious point.
	It cannot be a coincidence that so many veterans leave active service displaying an over-dependence on alcohol. I hardly need say how quickly such a dependence can, if left totally untreated, feed into other habits, violent behaviour and crime. That is why I would like the report to address the point of counselling on substance misuse playing a vital part in, as it were, the decompression of personnel.
	As those who have worked with or encountered veterans grappling with social estrangement will testify, these problems often do not arise singly, but are part of a package of social hindrances faced daily. It is thus only right that the report should take account of the multi-faceted nature of this rupture. Amendment 4 specifies that the report should take into account the recommendations of a panel of outside experts in the field, as well as specify a time frame in which they should be implemented. Proposed new subsection (2C) to clause 2 ensures that the Secretary of State is obliged to implement recommendations, rather than simply write things he or she has no intention of doing, by the fact that he or she must lay a further report before Parliament within 40 days of the laying of the initial report, explaining why certain recommendations have not been implemented.
	Amendment 3 also specifies that the report should outline the operation of the former armed services personnel rights charter, the former armed services personnel support officers, financial support for former armed services personnel welfare groups and the former armed services personnel policy forum, all of which are explained in the Bill.
	New clause 3 pertains to the former armed forces personnel rights charter, which would put in legislation an obligation on the Government to ensure that veterans undergo psychological assessment before leaving the armed forces—and possibly on entry, as has been said; that they have a resettlement assessment approximately six months before the expected date of discharge; that they have access to advice from voluntary organisations on how to combat potential problems after leaving the forces; and that they are given access to that advice in good time before they are discharged.
	At the moment, many veterans feel when that when leaving the forces people are on their own. Regardless of whether that is the case, I think we need to intensify personnel’s awareness of the support that is available to those who need it.

Louise Mensch: It is a great pleasure to be able to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman and take this opportunity to thank him for his incredible work for veterans not just in this Parliament but over many years, for which the entire House will commend him. May I put it to him, however, that his amendments are, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) pointed out, a little too prescriptive? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a simpler way to address the needs of our veterans would be for this country to have a veterans’ administration or Department, as every other nation in the English-speaking world does?

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the hon. Lady for her very generous comments, but I visited the United States in September and I visited the veterans’ agency. It is the second largest Department of State in the United States and it costs an absolute fortune to run. It was put in place, I believe, because the United States had to deal with the fallout of Vietnam. There is a much smaller scale operation in Canada. In an ideal world, the hon. Lady would be right, but in these straitened circumstances, it would be rather unrealistic of me to make that call. I hope that in the not-too-distant future we, too, will have such a Department. I do not make that call now, because I do not think it is realistic so to do.
	I take the hon. Lady’s point about my amendments being prescriptive and so on. It is a moot point: I may well be wrong and she may be right; I do not know. One thing we should consider urgently, however, as I have mentioned, is having a Minister in the Cabinet Office to cross-cut all available services and to consider everything in each Department that might or might not impact on veterans. I think that would be a useful step forward, albeit that it is not so dramatic a step as a veterans’ Department, which, at the end of the day, she and I would undoubtedly favour although it is perhaps unrealistic to call for it at this stage.

James Gray: I am a little uneasy about the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal about a Minister in the Cabinet Office and about the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mrs Mensch) for a Department for veterans’ affairs. It seems to me that the Secretary of State for Defence, the three services under him and under them the regiments and units to which people are attached are responsible for looking after veterans when they leave the services.
	To remove that responsibility from them and to give it to somebody else in the Cabinet Office or a separate Department would seem to me to be quite wrong.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman misses my point. That Minister would look at every single Department in turn, including the MOD, and when there was some form of engagement with veterans in that Department he or she would report accordingly on whatever he or she found to be the case. The responsibility would ultimately still lie with the military. I say, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman and those from the military who might be listening, that hitherto the military has not been very good at looking after veterans and that is why I am on my feet at the moment.

Sandra Osborne: I, for one, would love to see a dedicated Department for veterans in this country, notwithstanding the expense. If we feel that they deserve recognition, we should be prepared to put our money where our mouth is, perhaps not right now but in the future. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the huge step forward we are witnessing today is that the military covenant will be in law, which the Government previously resisted? That is a huge step forward.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Lady is right and I do welcome that. It is a step forward, for sure.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to drug and alcohol abuse, which is unfortunately prevalent among large numbers of those who have served in our armed forces and among some in the armed forces. Sometimes the solutions are not all state run, however. The most successful organisation in helping people with alcohol dependency is Alcoholics Anonymous and, sometimes, the state and the Ministry of Defence have been rather reluctant to involve voluntary organisations such as Alcoholics Anonymous in helping people out of their addiction.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that is right—I have no argument with that—but what is to prevent signposting and sending personnel to be assessed? For example, just down the road from here is an organisation called Veterans’ Aid, which is run by Wing Commander Hugh Milroy. Under his good offices, very few ex-service people are sleeping rough in London. There were quite a number of them 10 years ago; now there are hardly any. He has done that work. There are numerous organisations doing excellent work for ex-forces personnel, but I am arguing for a more consistent approach across the piece—a more holistic approach. I could use the words “postcode lottery”: there are good services and good practice, but we need to ensure that they are accessible across the piece and across all the constituent parts of the UK, wherever veterans are, wherever they served and whichever regiment they were with.

Andrew Robathan: At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr Gale, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and all in the House would like to join me in congratulating
	Wing Commander Milroy on his richly deserved OBE in the birthday honours only last Saturday.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am delighted to congratulate Wing Commander Milroy on that—it is a well-deserved honour for a lot of hard work in difficult circumstances.
	I do not want to take up too much time this evening, so I shall seek to truncate my remarks. Let me explain one or two more amendments. I will not press the Committee to a Division, because I want to make my points and to return to them at another time.
	New clause 3 specifies that back-up advice, in person and by telephone, should be made available for the first six months following discharge. Finally, tailored support should be made available for former armed services personnel in the criminal justice system. The issues surrounding veterans who come into contact with the criminal justice system have been the subject of debates in this House and I shall not go into great detail about them now, but holistic support is required, I believe, for such veterans to ensure that they get the support they need.
	New clause 4 would appoint a support officer for former armed services personnel in each prison and probation service in England and Wales. That might sound a bit airy-fairy and pie in the sky, but those people are out there. They are often people who are interested in the subject and who are ex-service personnel, but that turns on the question of whether we have the ex-services personnel in a prison, which is often the key to whether services are properly delivered for these people.

Bob Stewart: I just want to make one comment, which is that a heck of a lot of people leave the armed forces and go on to lead perfectly normal, decent lives. They do not need help and I am a little worried that we are giving the impression that everyone needs some sort of help. They do not; only a small percentage of people require that help.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree entirely and I do not want to give the false impression that the majority of service leavers are in dire need of help. That has never been true and never will be. I fully take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board and I agree with what he says. He, of course, comes from a service background and knows this patch rather well—probably far better than I do.

Hon. Members: But he needs quite a lot of help!

Bob Stewart: Thank you very much!

Elfyn Llwyd: I will move to finish my remarks fairly quickly because we are subject to some rather strange remarks at the moment.
	The role that support officers would play would be to ensure that relevant individuals who came into contact with the criminal justice system received support while they were held within the system. Only a small percentage end up in the criminal justice system, but it is entirely possible that a goodly number of those people would not be in the prison system if they had been assisted in other ways when they came out of the services. That is
	my point. As far as the numbers are concerned, I am not saying that the majority are affected, as that would be absolute nonsense.
	Concurrent with the need for support officers is the need to improve the recording of the number of veterans held in prisons, on probation or on parole. At no time hitherto has an individual been asked, upon entry to the justice system, whether they have a service record, but that is now changing I am pleased to say. I shall not go into this topic at length, but I note that a survey conducted by the Home Office in 2001-02 recorded that roughly 6% of inmates were veterans, whereas a survey carried out by the MOD in 2007 estimated the percentage in one prison, Dartmoor, at 17.5%. I shall not get into bandying figures around, as we have had this debate before. These are MOD figures, not mine or NAPO’s. I remember that the last time we had such a debate everyone clubbed together to denigrate Harry Fletcher, but these are not his figures.

Kevan Jones: Stop making them up then.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am not making them up.

Kevan Jones: I know that discussion of this issue can be a bit like “Groundhog Day”, but when I was a Minister, I—under pressure from the right hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in this matter—had the Ministry of Justice’s figures, going back to 1967 for the Royal Air Force, cross-referenced with service records and the figure came out at just over 3%. That is not to dispute the fact that there might be more of those individuals in certain prisons, but the facts were established independently and I do not know why certain people keep disputing them.

Elfyn Llwyd: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why, if we have time to talk turkey. They are disputed because of the scoping exercise that was recently carried out, which came out with a figure of about 5% or 6%. The figure does not really matter, but figures he mentioned excluded women who had served, the reserve forces, those who had served in Northern Ireland and people under 18.

Kevan Jones: indicated  dissent .

Elfyn Llwyd: They certainly did, but the hon. Gentleman and I can argue about that elsewhere. I am sure that they did; I would not say so otherwise.

James Gray: May I make a subtler point, rather than disputing the numbers? Although some of the people we are discussing may theoretically be veterans, in that they may have served in the armed services at some time, the only ones we should be concerned about and who need special care of the kind being described would be those who have recently left the armed services, possibly having had combat experience, and those whose crimes can be directly attributable to their service. The mere fact that someone perhaps did national service 30 years ago should not necessarily distinguish them from other prisoners.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree. The only slight note of caution I would add is that, whatever the figure, there are a number of cases of post-traumatic stress disorder and,
	as the hon. Gentleman knows, PTSD can show itself within a month or can take 15 years to develop.
	New clause 5 sets out that financial support shall be made available for ex-services personnel. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the invaluable work of service charities. New clause 5 also sets out the importance of conducting a study of the services already available to veterans, which would provide a baseline for future progress. There is perhaps a little too much room for overlap in some services, whereas some needs are hardly catered for at all. Joining services together and learning from best practice would establish a holistic means to tackle the problem.
	Finally, new clause 6 would establish a veterans’ policy forum that would draw its membership from the statutory, private and voluntary sectors. The aim of this forum would be to consult the Government on best practice in the treatment of veterans and their welfare. This once again rests on the vital importance of those with vested interests in this field working together so that no veteran will be made to feel abandoned by a system that is unable to tackle the peculiar problems they might face. I note that a number of amendments surrounding the military covenant have now been withdrawn. I know not what the reason for that is, but I conclude by saying that having the covenant in statutory form is a historic step. I hope that our debates on these clauses will lead to further action being taken in the not-too-distant future as well.

Gemma Doyle: I wish to move amendments 16 and 17—is that in order, Mr Gale?

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Lady may speak to any of the amendments that have been grouped. They will be moved, if they are moved, when they are reached at the appropriate point in the Bill, so it is simply a question of speaking to them now.

Gemma Doyle: Thank you for that clarification, Mr Gale. I will speak to amendments 16 and 17 and to new clauses 13, 14 and 17. As the Committee knows, the vast majority of debate and discussion on the Bill has been about clause 2 and specifically about the military covenant and how best to ensure that it is honoured. Our concern all along has been to ensure that the Government achieve what they have said they want to achieve by enshrining the covenant in law. At the heart of this debate is the overriding principle that no one should be disadvantaged because of their military service. Indeed, many service families have told me that they do not want special treatment—just fair treatment. I welcome the Government’s amendments as a step in the right direction on the military covenant, but the path to get them to this point has been far from graceful. It has been both tortuous and frustrating to watch Ministers deny what was in black and white on paper in front of them, but however they got here I am certainly glad that they have progressed.
	We spent many hours debating the covenant in the Select Committee, with the Government arguing both that the unamended Bill enshrined the covenant in law and that it was not necessary to do so. I am not sure whether they have changed their minds on either or both of those points, but I welcome the change of heart
	none the less and I am pleased to confirm that we support the amendments in the name of the Minister for the Armed Forces although they are not as strong as we had hoped. They enshrine in law the principles of reporting to Parliament, but they are still a step away from fully enshrining the covenant in law. I suspect that Ministers have once again been thwarted by lawyers and civil servants.

Bob Russell: Does the hon. Lady accept that what we have before us is a vast improvement on the situation a year ago?

Gemma Doyle: The amendments tabled today are a vast improvement on the Bill as it stood. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, I wonder why he did not support my amendments in the Select Committee that would have achieved that. Instead, he voted down any proposals to strengthen the covenant or the Bill.
	New clause 17 would fully enshrine—

Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Gemma Doyle: I should like to make a little progress before the Minister—

Andrew Robathan: We have plenty of time.

Gemma Doyle: I should at least like to finish my sentence if that is all right.
	New clause 17 would fully enshrine the principles of the covenant in law, not half-heartedly but unambiguously.

Andrew Robathan: The point the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) was trying to make was that between 1997 and 2010 there was a Labour Government—new Labour, old Labour or whatever we like to call them—and nothing was done. I do not hold the hon. Lady responsible because she was not in the House then. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, when we took office a year ago there was no mention of the covenant, yet now we are putting it on a statutory basis for the first time. I think I first used those words in the House on 10 January.

Gemma Doyle: On frequent occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that plenty was done for veterans under the previous Government, including the creation of his job. If he wants to keep it, perhaps he should have got this right in the first place.
	New clause 17 would place a duty on all Departments and public bodies to give consideration to service families and veterans in policy making and implementation. Although it is very welcome that the Secretary of State will report to the House, I would rather such matters were integral to the policy-making framework from the beginning and the new clause would ensure that.

Chris Bryant: In her amendment 16, my hon. Friend draws a distinction—unlike the Bill—between health care and mental health care. Many people hope that there will one day be a time when nobody has to draw that distinction because we treat the two exactly the same, but unfortunately it is still an important area that
	we have to highlight, particularly for armed forces veterans, because all too often there is a Cinderella service that gets no attention. Does my hon. Friend think that it is essential to maintain that distinction? Otherwise, Ministers might just put a single sentence about mental health care into the Bill and that would be wholly insufficient.

Gemma Doyle: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Without amendment 16, there will be no requirement whatever for the Secretary of State to look at mental health care or to come to Parliament to report on it. As I have said on a number of occasions, I welcome both the duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament and the consequential annual debate, but I still have great concerns that as the Bill stands, only health, education and housing are cited as issues that the report should cover. That is not sufficient. The list in amendment 16 is more comprehensive and more appropriately reflects the Secretary of State’s responsibilities.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. It was a pleasure to serve with her on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. She says that she is keen to see things in black and white, and she refers to the prescription that she would like to see on the face of the Bill. May I point her to the evidence given by Chris Simpkins of the Royal British Legion in answer to my question? I asked:
	“You seem to accept, therefore, that having a prescriptive set of pillars—areas that need to be focused on—in the Report would make it too exclusive and that it is better to have three or four areas that are clearly set out, as required by law, and a catch-all clause to incorporate anything else that is necessary at a point in time.”
	To which Mr Simpkins responded, “I would indeed.” Why does the hon. Lady think she knows better than the director general of the Royal British Legion?

Gemma Doyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and I have debated that point before and, as he knows, I think he is confusing a list of prescribed entitlements with a list of issues on which the Secretary of State has to report. My point all along has been that the Secretary of State should not be reporting on the work of other Departments without reporting on the work of his own Department. It would be bizarre if a report criticised local authorities, or indeed the Department for Education, for disadvantaging the children of service people, but had no reference at all to the MOD’s responsibilities, such as pension provision for the armed forces. I cannot envisage a time in the near future when pension provision will not be an area of concern for our armed forces, so it should be included in the list.
	The list does not limit the fields on which the Secretary of State should report; it expands them and makes provision for further relevant issues to be included as circumstances dictate.

Andrew Robathan: When the Secretary of State comes to the House to make his annual report and, if the hon. Lady is still in her place—

Kevan Jones: Or you are.

Andrew Robathan: Very unlikely, if I may say so—as the hon. Lady has already suggested.
	Is the hon. Lady telling the Committee that, if she is still in her place and there is no mention in the report of pension provision or mental health care—on which we are doing a great deal of work, as she knows; my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has done a lot of work for us and we are taking it forward—and she thinks that is an issue, she will not mention it?

Gemma Doyle: I give the Minister a categorical assurance that I will mention it. My concern is whether the Secretary of State will even consider those issues. As the Bill stands, he does not have to; he need only look at education, health and housing, and that is not good enough.
	I should have liked to explore further with the Minister why education, health care and housing had been chosen at the expense of the many other issues that have been of great concern over the past 12 months. However, he declined to give evidence on his Bill.
	I am also concerned that there is nothing in clause 2 that applies to Scottish or Welsh veterans. At the very least, the Bill should be amended to send a clear signal about the UK-wide responsibilities of the Secretary of State. If the family of a Scottish service person live off-base in local authority housing, their housing requirements are devolved. We have been advised that the Secretary of State will update the House even when those matters are devolved. It seems odd that such a thing could happen, because the Secretary of State is not responsible for the delivery of devolved services; nor is he or she accountable, and thus could not answer questions on the matter.

Sandra Osborne: I am quite surprised to hear my hon. Friend say that. I understood in the Select Committee that the Government had undertaken to discuss that with the devolved Parliaments. I would have expected it to be resolved, including legislation, by now.

Gemma Doyle: I entirely agree, but the correspondence I have seen does not indicate that that is the case.

Andrew Robathan: May I help the hon. Lady?

Gemma Doyle: Please do.

Andrew Robathan: I think the Opposition are fishing in desperation for things to get excited about, but they do not need to. I have in my hand a letter from the right hon. Alex Salmond, who describes himself as the First Minister of Scotland, for that is indeed his post. The letter is dated June, although I cannot actually read the day. It thanks the Secretary of State for Defence for his letter about the armed forces covenant and states that the Scottish Government have and will continue to provide unequivocal support for the armed forces, families and veterans. I shall not read the whole thing out, but it welcomes the new armed forces covenant as an important step forward from the 2008 service personnel Command Paper.
	There is no disagreement between us. We are in discussion with the devolved Administrations. We are interested in results, rather than the box-ticking that the hon. Lady describes.

Gemma Doyle: The letter that the right hon. Gentleman has read out does not address the point I just made. Constitutional issues are involved. I believe that it would be unconstitutional for the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box here and report on devolved matters. My understanding is that if I were to secure an Adjournment debate on a devolved matter, it would not be taken on the Floor of the House. It would be ruled out of order, as indeed it should be. I am afraid that the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not address that point.
	However the process with the devolved Administrations is handled, the inclusion of pensions and benefits as a defined area in the report would ensure that the report reflected issues for service people throughout the whole United Kingdom. As the Bill stands, Scottish and Welsh veterans in particular are being ignored. Fundamentally, I want the Secretary of State to come to Parliament and report on the matters for which he or she is responsible.
	It is one thing to talk about the military covenant; the real test is how that acknowledgement is reflected in the decisions of Ministers. Their actions mean that thousands of servicemen and women will be made redundant, many more will see cuts to their allowances and all will be hit disproportionately hard compared with other workers by plans to downgrade public sector pension rises. These are just some of the many decisions taken by the Government in the past 12 months that have undermined the military covenant and given no cognisance to the unique nature of the work that our armed forces do. I am glad the Bill will recognise that through amendment 11, and I hope that Ministers will reflect that in their decision making, in which such recognition has been absent so far.

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Lady talks about honouring the armed services. Does she not think that a £38 billion black hole in the armed services budget dishonours the armed services—a black hole that her Government left behind?

Gemma Doyle: I should like to see the hon. Gentleman justify and explain that figure. It is not true, as he knows.

Chris Bryant: I am interested in outcomes as well. One of my concerns has been that armed forces personnel who live in different parts of the United Kingdom end up being treated rather differently because of the devolution settlement. That is not an argument to undo the devolution settlement; it is simply to say that, for instance, council tax relief for second homes for those who live in Army bases in Wales has been allowed at a different rate from that in England and in Scotland. It would be a good thing to be able to highlight those differences so that all the different elements of the United Kingdom heighten their support for veterans and those in the armed forces, rather than ignore them.

Gemma Doyle: My hon. Friend makes a good point. My concern is about how that will happen. I do not believe that the mechanisms have been fully worked
	through. That is why I want to strengthen the report and the fields that will be included in it.
	On new clause 13, the nation demands a great deal from its servicemen and women, as is often stated in the House. They are required to follow orders without question. They and their families are often separated for long periods. Frequent moves, often at short notice, can disrupt family life. Forces accommodation is sometimes remote, making it difficult for partners and children to mix with civilian communities. Service personnel are entitled to expect as normal a family life as their military obligations permit.
	Through the implementation of the service personnel Command Paper, the Labour Government worked to ensure that servicemen and women were seen not as ordinary citizens, but as people deserving the very best in public services. However, public services have not and do not always take account of their particular needs, and the Government should work across Departments to ensure that their needs are always taken into account. Major General John Moore-Bick from the Armed Forces Pension Society said:
	“There is a unique nature to what armed forces families go through. This is not special pleading. In the armed forces you are asked to do things nobody else in the public sector would be asked to do. It is only right that they should have a special status.”
	Governments of all parties must be committed to giving due consideration to the needs of servicemen and women, their families and veterans when it comes to public service delivery, working hard to create a level playing field so that forces families suffer no disadvantage.
	Armed forces advocates were established by the Labour Government to identify and resolve policy or legislative issues that might affect the service community. They advise on how public services can best meet the service community’s needs. At present there are a number of armed forces advocates from various Government Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and the Treasury. This complements the work of organisations, associations and charities that offer advice and support to service personnel and their families.
	The advocates network has worked well. New clause 13 would extend the existing network to ensure that all levels of government in the UK are represented and can therefore help to resolve the issues that may disadvantage our service community.

Mark Lancaster: What is the hon. Lady’s estimate of the cost of extending that body of advocates?

Gemma Doyle: I envisage that the advocates would be drawn from the staff already working in Departments, who are linked into the knowledge that exists and would be a useful point of contact for armed forces and their families interacting with those Departments and public bodies.
	During the evidence sessions in Committee we heard time and again from charities that they wanted those with responsibility for the delivery of services to be involved in resolving issues, rather than the Secretary of State or a Minister directing from the centre. New clause 13 would ensure that those involved in service delivery at every level, including local government and
	NHS trusts, are aware of the special nature of service and of the need to tailor their services accordingly. We have talked a great deal about the need for accountability, and the new clause would ensure that accountability is enhanced by bringing into policy formulation and delivery those who are truly responsible for providing the service that people need.
	On amendment 17, it is crucial that the annual covenant report covers all the issues that are central to the covenant. At present, the limited list of three issues is subject to the mood of the Secretary of State of the day so, as already mentioned, we would like the list of fields that the Government are compelled to report on to be lengthened. It is extremely important that that includes inquests. Military inquests are often complex and controversial. Understandably, they involve high emotion and require the utmost sensitivity and real expertise.
	The office of the chief coroner was established with cross-party support by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It aimed to provide for some of the issues that arise out of military fatalities. The chief coroner’s office was intended to ensure that families and friends were sufficiently involved in the coroner’s investigation, to introduce quality controls and independent safeguards in relation to inquests, and to add consistency, leadership, independence and expertise to the coroners dealing with military inquests.

Bob Stewart: I am a bit worried about including inquests in the annual report. This is such a sensitive area and I feel that it should be taken separately. I am not fixed on that, but let us be cautious about bringing inquests into an annual report. That might appear trite or to be dealing with them too lightly, when they are such an important and sensitive matter for families. That is just a comment. Although I am not sure where exactly I stand on the issue, that is my initial feeling.

Gemma Doyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations. I certainly appreciate his concerns. There is great concern among the families who are involved in the issue. Based on their reflections, I believe that further attention needs to be given to the matter.

James Gray: The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time. I am slightly concerned by her observation that the amendment has come about as a result of representations from families. My experience, bearing in mind that all the inquests in recent years occur in Wiltshire, is that families are extremely well satisfied with Mr Masters, who has been the main coroner involved. I am not certain that there is a huge problem to be solved.

Gemma Doyle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the office of the chief coroner was set up, following a great deal of consultation, to address issues that were raised. Indeed, it was established with cross-party support. Those issues have not gone away as far as I am aware, although I respect his experience in this matter. There have been varying reports from around the country, and that may be where the difference lies.
	The office of the chief coroner is to be abolished by the Public Bodies Bill as a cost-saving measure. The Royal British Legion calls this “a betrayal” of bereaved
	armed forces families which threatens the military covenant. That intention was confirmed today in a written ministerial statement. I understand that the Government say they are transferring responsibilities, but the improvements that the new chief coroner’s office would have brought about will now be lost.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being very generous. Trowbridge is in my constituency and it is where the military inquests have been taking place under the supervision of Mr Masters, to whom I have spoken on the issue. Does the hon. Lady accept that the main concern that families have expressed over the past several years is not to do with the lack of a chief coroner, who could easily be biddable in the way that local coroners have not been, but because there has been a disparity in the legal support given to either side? The MOD has been sponsoring—paying for—barristers in what is meant to be a non-adversarial situation, something which, happily, is no longer the case.

Gemma Doyle: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The office of the chief coroner would seek to address some of the issues that he raises about the variations and the inconsistencies in families’ experiences. Each time that the office of the chief coroner has been considered by Parliament it has been supported—twice in 2009, and just last December the other place voted to save it. The Secretary of State for Justice does not seem to be listening, and not for the first time. He cites cost as an issue, but the Royal British Legion and INQUEST have been clear that they are prepared to open discussions on how the cost can be reduced. I hope that the Minister will listen to these pleas. This is exactly the sort of decision that must be subject to greater accountability and scrutiny. At present an issue so central to the armed forces community would not be covered by the armed forces report on the covenant, and that is why we tabled the amendment. I ask the Minister today to commit to making representations on behalf of the armed forces community to keep the office of the chief coroner. I hope that at the very least the Government will support this amendment to ensure that this vital issue is reported on annually.
	As I have previously said, we were all entertained in Committee by the Minister with responsibility for veterans as he performed verbal gymnastics on the issue of whether the Government were meeting the Prime Minister’s famous commitment given on the deck of the Ark Royal. However, just as important as writing the covenant into law, the Bill should provide a form of accountability so that the principles contained in the covenant mean something in reality, and that is what new clause 14 seeks to achieve.
	During the debates in preparation for Green Paper in 2009, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) tells me that he argued strongly, against the wishes of his officials, that parliamentary and local government ombudsmen should provide a system of accountability. The ombudsmen were happy to take on that work and it was included in the 2009 Green Paper—the nation’s commitment to the armed forces community: consistent and enduring support. The Opposition continue to believe that that is the right approach. In Committee, the Minister was at pains to point out that officials
	advise and Minister’s decide, but given the weak nature of what has been proposed in the Bill, it appears that his officials are more in control than he would care to admit.

Denis MacShane: For a number of years I dealt with the case of a constituent of mine who had served in Iraq, been wounded and shipped home, and then, frankly, hung out to dry by both his former public sector employer and, to a lesser extent, the local authority. This concept of an ombudsman to take up such cases is important.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that scores of hon. Members on both sides of the House are keen to see a national defence medal inaugurated so that every former soldier, sailor or airman who has served Her Majesty the Queen in the last 50 years can have a medal that they can wear with pride on Remembrance day? I hope very much that we will be given good news on that tonight.

Gemma Doyle: My right hon. Friend highlights the reason to have such ombudsmen. It is essential that there should be a system of accountability as a last resort, should all reasonable means fail. This is not about creating justiciable rights, but a system of accountability is needed if the covenant is to mean anything. Principles must be enforceable if they are to be anything more than words on a piece of paper.
	We will support the amendments in the name of the Secretary of State, but we are still somewhat disappointed as we believe that the Bill could go further, specifically on the military covenant. Our amendments would strengthen those provisions and the Bill. I would very much have liked to press all our amendments, but in particular we will press amendment 16 and new clause 17.

Bob Russell: I congratulate the coalition Government on bringing forward the armed forces covenant. I served throughout the Committee—

Andrew Robathan: Very well.

Bob Russell: I am grateful. Thank you.
	I would like to confine my remarks on this string of amendments to the narrow subject of housing and matters relating to the welfare of Army families. However, I hope that before we finish this evening the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that not a single penny will be cut from the wages of a single member of the Parachute Regiment or 16 Air Assault Brigade more widely.
	The last Government can take a lot of credit for things that they did. I hope that what happened previously, under the Veterans Minister and so on, will be built upon by the coalition Government. However, when it comes to the accommodation of the families of our military personnel, successive Governments have failed. The last Conservative and Labour Governments failed. When it comes to single people’s accommodation, Merville barracks in Colchester is the best to be found anywhere in the country, but that only sharpens the contrast with the unacceptable housing for married families. Either Colchester garrison is unique or the accommodation there is typical of that which our military families are required to live in. What makes it worse, is that former Army housing in my constituency has rightly been
	modernised to a high standard through the Department for Communities and Local Government, while on the other side of the road Army families, looking out on these modern buildings, occupy what an Army wife described in a letter to the
	Essex County Standard 
	on Friday as the worst in the country.
	That unnamed soldier’s wife says:
	“I have been married to a soldier for 20 years and lived throughout in services accommodation.
	The married quarters in Colchester are the worst I have ever had to live in, and the system in place to rectify faults is laughable.
	The direct line puts you through to a call centre in Liverpool, to talk to someone who has no idea of the conditions you live in or the stresses you endure while your husband’s away. They will then expect you to take a day off work so a tradesman can turn up, and it’s then a lottery as to the standard of the repair.”
	The letter goes on at great length to describe the woeful inadequacies of the Defence Housing Executive. The soldier’s wife says:
	“We’ve given up complaining to the Defence Housing Executive, as all we get are curt replies, from staff who seemingly have never served or been married to a serving member. It is apparent they have never seen inside the properties.”
	There is a critical suggestion that perhaps things have got worse since the Defence Housing Executive took over.
	We are talking here of the families of soldiers who only last week marched through the centre of Colchester in a welcome home parade and the next day had a thanksgiving and memorial service at Bury St. Edmunds cathedral. Yet we expect their families to live in accommodation that this soldier’s wife described as the worst in the country. If the Government can rightly find money to modernise former Army housing to accommodate civilians, the same Government should be able to find the money to modernise housing fit for the heroes who have just returned from Helmand province.
	Allied to that, the armed forces covenant refers to education. I look at education in the broader sense—not just the education of serving military personnel but the education of the children of military personnel. Once the former Army houses are occupied by civilian families, the adjoining schools, the Montgomery infant and junior schools—that gives a clue to the military ethos—will be full up. There will not be room at the Army schools for the children of Army personnel. If anything, the armed forces covenant should look at the families of military personnel as well as the serving personnel.

Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give the Government credit for including service children in the pupil premium, which will benefit his constituents as it has done mine?

Bob Russell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and am delighted to endorse that point. The pupil premium has been a great asset to all children of military personnel and has certainly been a great bonus for those in the five schools in my constituency that have a large proportion of service children—as much as 80% in one case. Military families also require peace of mind, and I greatly regret the fact that the previous Government dramatically reduced the number
	of Ministry of Defence police officers, from 30 to three in my constituency. I heard over the weekend that, regrettably, up to 1,000 MOD police officers are to lose their jobs.

Gemma Doyle: I sympathise entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Does he think that it would have been appropriate for the Minister to attend the Defence Police Federation’s annual conference on Monday? I was there, but instead of looking at him I had to look at an empty chair that the Defence Police Federation had set out for him.

Bob Russell: I have no knowledge of that, but the hon. Lady has made the point and there will no doubt be a response.

Andrew Robathan: Indeed there will be if I may intervene. Has the hon. Lady visited the headquarters of the MOD police in Suffolk?

Roger Gale: Order. The Minister cannot question the hon. Lady because she does not have the Floor.

Bob Russell: This is a serious issue. To the best of my knowledge, the MOD police are an integral part of the wider military family. However, over the past 10 years the previous Government were determined, as I regret the coalition Government now appear to be, to reduce MOD police numbers to the point where I suspect at some future stage we will be told that they no longer have a purpose and can be done away with. All I can say is that where there were once 30 MOD police officers serving an exclusive Army estate in excess of 2,000 dwellings, there are now just three such officers. The expectation that Essex constabulary can suddenly conjure 27 police officers to fill that breach will not be met.
	We now have a situation in which we have Army families and civilian families and the demarcation between policing is not clear. The lifestyle of civilians is not always compatible with the military ethos of the service families. I am trying to choose my words carefully. All I am saying is that the presence of MOD police officers brought a security and comfort to military families which has been lost at the same time as the ethos of a 100% Army estate has been dramatically reduced. I put it to the Minister that the Government need to look carefully at their proposals to reduce dramatically the number of MOD police officers. It will have little effect in Colchester because 27 police officers have already been got rid of and, with only three left, we do not have much further to go.
	I welcome the armed forces covenant, previously known as the military covenant, and congratulate the Royal British Legion on all it has done. We should all be grateful to the legion. My only regret is that some people appear to be trying to turn it into a party political football.

Andrew Robathan: I will respond initially to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I do not want to mislead him, but I am pretty sure that the pay will continue for all members of the Parachute Regiment who are able to parachute, and
	certainly for those in parachuting jobs, so we are not scrapping parachute pay. I think that I am the only Member in the Chamber who has received pay for jumping out of aircraft, and it was very welcome at the time.

Bob Russell: May I just point out that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I got not a single penny when we were thrown out at 13,000 feet?

Andrew Robathan: Well, the hon. Gentlemen obviously got parachutes, which might not be my intention for one or two other people.
	I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s serious concerns about housing, which is an ongoing problem that we wish to improve. We inherited a bad situation, but I do not question the good faith of the previous Administration because it is a difficult matter—[ Interruption. ] Well, I do not think that we can be blamed for the state of housing 14 years ago.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Robathan: Oh, apparently we can be blamed.

Kevan Jones: If the previous Conservative Government had not sold off the estate to Annington Homes, which the Minister will find hamstrings him in what he can do with housing, we would be in a better position.

Andrew Robathan: I do not think that we want to revisit debates from 1996 and I doubt that you, Dr McCrea, would allow it—[ Interruption. ] Shall we revisit that debate from 1996? I have to say that I had words with Ministers at the time and was not entirely enthusiastic about the policy, but there we are. It is important that we continue to work on housing because we do not wish people to live in substandard accommodation.
	The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) mentioned the Defence Police Federation’s annual conference, which took place up near the Clyde, next to her constituency. The head of the federation works on the floor above me in the MOD, and I have invited him to come to talk to me about the issues. I do not think that that is particularly unreasonable, especially since the conference is taking place today and I have to be here.
	I will consider the large number of amendments in three chunks. I will speak first to the Government amendments, secondly to the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and thirdly to the official Opposition’s amendments. When the Government decided to include clause 2 in the Bill, we had two main objectives: to recognise the armed forces covenant in legislation, as we are committed to doing; and to strengthen the Government’s accountability to the House through the mechanism of an annual report on the covenant.
	The clause rightly places the covenant at the heart of our national debate on whether we are treating current and former members of the armed forces as they deserve to be treated. This is not a matter in which only the Government have an interest; right hon. and hon. Members are well aware that groups that aim to speak for the
	armed forces community, including the Royal British Legion, take a close and constructive interest. The legion has now made clear its overall support for what we are trying to do in relation to the covenant. I do not apologise in any way for listening to what it and others have said and, having done so, making changes to the legislation.

Gemma Doyle: Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the process by which the Bill has come about? What exactly changed his mind?

Andrew Robathan: I do not regret the process at all. What has happened—I would have thought that the hon. Lady had spotted this, because she is a capable person—is that we have been discussing and listening to things and came to the view that we might enhance the Bill, which is what we have done.

Lyn Brown: Chaos.

Andrew Robathan: Contrary to what the hon. Lady says from a sedentary position—perhaps she is reading what is on her BlackBerry—it is not chaos.
	Those other organisations are as concerned as the Government are to avoid the pitfalls of the covenant ending up in the courts. They have also pointed out where they think we can do better, and we have listened to them. They argued persuasively that the language of the Bill that related to the armed forces covenant report did not go far enough in explaining our intentions. Our amendments aim to put that right, and I hope that everybody in the Chamber welcomes that.

Kevan Jones: So why did the Minister, along with his Liberal Democrat colleagues, argue forcefully in Committee on numerous occasions that the Bill as it then stood enshrined the covenant in law, when clearly it did not?

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman, together with the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, is continuing to fish for any minor criticisms that he can make. We have listened to what people have said and responded, and they might welcome that rather than carping at it.

Christopher Pincher: Does my right hon. Friend think that this is rather rich coming from Labour Members, and certainly from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)? Having had 13 long years with the time, the majorities and the money to introduce a Bill, they merely produced a Green Paper, whereas we introduced a Bill within 12 months. Is not my right hon. Friend rather proud of that?

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.
	Our amendments do not seek to introduce new constraints to prevent the Secretary of State from using his discretion in preparing the report. They do not try to prejudge in detail exactly which subjects will be relevant—unlike, I fear, several of the amendments that we are discussing. Rather, they allow us to be clear about the principles to which the Secretary of State must have regard, especially now that the armed forces
	covenant has been published. The three ideas or principles contained in amendment 11 are, I trust, the subject of agreement in all parts of the Committee. The
	“unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by”
	our service personnel are matters of fact: the requirement to deploy anywhere in the world at no notice, to put themselves in harm’s way, and to use lethal force—all without question, as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire said. No other part of our society is called upon to undertake those obligations. The sacrifices made not only by those who suffer injury or death, but by those who give up the kind of family life which the rest of us take for granted, are also of a different nature from what is expected of others. We are not in danger of forgetting that, but we recognise that there should be no doubt that the Secretary of State will take it into account when he is preparing the annual armed forces covenant report and considering the effects of service.
	The other two principles listed in the amendment are not statements of fact in the same way, but they should command the same level of consensus. They are at the core of the Government’s and the nation’s obligations under the covenant. We can never remove all disadvantage that results from membership of the armed forces—the very nature of the job prevents it—but we can, and must, do all we can to minimise disadvantages, particularly when it concerns access to public services. In preparing the amendment, I paused for a long time over the word “desirable”. Surely it is more than desirable to remove disadvantage. “Desirable” gets overruled by words such as “essential” or “important”. Nevertheless, we must recognise that it will not always be feasible to remove every disadvantage. Therefore, in terms of legislation, we must not express the principle in language which we could never achieve. Let the Committee be in no doubt, however, that where it is appropriate to take action, the Government see that as much more than “desirable”.
	The question of disadvantage is dealt with more fully in amendment 12—an important new provision that clarifies how the annual report will deal with removing or reducing disadvantage. The first part requires the Secretary of State to make a judgment about whether the effects of service constitute or result in disadvantage when he is looking at a particular field—an element of the covenant such as health care or housing. He is also required to look at service people or
	“particular descriptions of service people”.
	In other words, he will be looking at individual elements of the armed forces community. That could be a very broad category including families or ex-service personnel, or it could be a smaller grouping such as those injured in service or foreign and Commonwealth personnel. The Committee will understand that this gives the Secretary of State the ability to drill down to find the real problems, which often do not affect a whole group but a small part of it. The amendment also gives the Secretary of State the responsibility of deciding who should be the subject of that comparison. In some cases, the right comparison will be with the ordinary civilian; in others, it may make sense to look at a rather more specialised comparison such as with members of the emergency services.
	The second part of amendment 12 sets out what the Secretary of State must do with his judgment. He must go on to say in the annual report what is his response to
	the disadvantage that he has identified. Perhaps nothing can be done about it—it may be an inevitable result of the military profession—or he may be able to announce how the matter is to be resolved, or who has responsibility for doing so. In all cases, the House will be in a position to decide whether that response is satisfactory.
	Returning to amendment 11, the final paragraph refers to the principle that “special provision” or special treatment “may be justified”. Again, this is expressed in a form that is appropriate to the circumstances. It is not trying to pre-ordain any particular form of special treatment—that would be quite wrong—but it establishes the key place of special treatment in the obligations that we owe to service people.
	Amendment 13 adds more about special provision. It requires the Secretary of State to look at the effects of service covered in his annual report and to reach a view on whether special provision would be justified. It adds that when he believes that special provision would be justified, he must say so. As with the previous amendment, he is not obliged to treat service people as if they are a single group who must all be treated in the same way. He can again consider
	“particular descriptions of service people”
	and make detailed judgments about how we should respond to their circumstances.
	Members of the armed forces community do not, as a rule, want special favours. They accept that they are citizens like their civilian neighbours. They expect fair treatment. They do not like finding themselves at the back of the queue because they have joined the services, but they do not insist on being at the front of the queue. However, there may be times when we wish to place them at the front of the queue. Of course, when personnel are injured in the course of their duty, or when they lose their lives, the obligations on us are even greater. We can never truly make up for the sacrifice that they or their loved ones have made, but we do make special provision for injured personnel and bereaved families, and we must look out for sensible opportunities to do more. For example, this Government have introduced scholarships in higher education for the children of those killed in service since 1990. That step has been widely welcomed, and we are now processing applications. The amendment does not require us to extend special provision in particular ways or to try to prejudge when it will be appropriate. Instead, it requires us to keep the principle at the forefront of our minds when preparing the annual report so that Parliament can decide if we have treated these particularly deserving groups in the right way.
	The three amendments will mean that, for the first time, an Act of Parliament refers to the key principles of the armed forces covenant. They do this in a form which does not give them legal force in terms of individual actions but which ensures that the Secretary of State has regard to them in his important new duty to prepare a report. That will strengthen further the accountability that the Government are seeking to build.
	I turn to the amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, which cover a good deal of ground. New clause 2 and amendment 2 would require the creation of a new Minister for former armed services personnel. I do not take his comments
	amiss in any way. I do not think that he was particularly getting at me in suggesting that there should be such a Minister—he said specifically that he was not—but I am, of course, responsible for former armed forces personnel. As he said, ex-service personnel issues lie across the whole of Government, not just within the Ministry of Defence. However, the MOD is uniquely placed to play a leading role. After all, we run the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, and we are closely involved in the transition of members of the armed forces to civilian life. I believe—I know it to be true, in fact—that we have a special understanding of what our people have been through. For those reasons, I am confident that the current arrangements are fit for purpose. That does not mean that they cannot be improved, but we work on that as things evolve. Looking at the different roles envisaged, I can find no justification for a new post. It is right that the Secretary of State for Defence, with overall responsibility for current and former members of the armed forces, has the responsibility of preparing the annual report. I fail to see the value in requiring a Minister to conduct activities that are positive to the well-being of former services personnel. Such legislation is not necessary.
	Another proposed duty is to conduct research. The MOD commissions a great deal of high-quality research relating to current and former service personnel. For example, the King’s Centre for Military Health Research has followed a cohort of more than 20,000 members of the armed forces to investigate the impact of service in Iraq and Afghanistan. We continue to work with the voluntary and communities sector to improve understanding of the issues faced by the armed forces community and to build up evidence to monitor progress. There is no need for legislation. I know that the head of the King’s Centre for Military Health Research would be willing to talk to the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that, I think he would find it extremely useful and interesting, particularly on mental health issues.
	We can consider amendment 3 in two halves. The first half would require the Secretary of State to take into account the operation of a range of instruments and bodies, which would be created in turn by new clauses 3 to 6. We do not think that those new creations are necessary. New clause 3 would require the Government to draw up a charter for former armed forces personnel. It gives a list of things that should be included. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the proposal for a charter is overtaken by the publication of the armed forces covenant. The approach that we have taken in the covenant is better, because it avoids the creation of legal rights, which his charter could easily do. The covenant extends to service personnel and family members and is based on firm principles. In contrast, new clause 3 lists specific issues. All of them are important matters, but we believe that they are all captured in Government policy.
	I will go through the list briefly. On psychological assessments, we are currently building a greater focus on mental health into service and discharge medical examinations. On resettlement, we are committed to supporting service leavers in making the important step back into civilian life. There is a full package in place, which we are looking to improve. On access to support and advice, all former service personnel facing difficulties
	have access to the free veterans helpline, which receives between 150,000 and 200,000 calls a year. We also have the veterans welfare service and the veterans in custody support programme, which provides tailored support for former personnel in the criminal justice system. None of that required a charter setting out legal requirements.
	New clause 4 also focuses on support in the prison and probation systems. I note that the right hon. Gentleman feels deeply about this issue and has raised it on many occasions. I must tell him that his proposal for—[ Interruption. ]

William McCrea: Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to keep the noise down. We want to hear the response from the Minister. A lot of people intervened and asked questions. It is only appropriate, proper and courteous to hear the answers.

Andrew Robathan: If Members have come in at the behest of the Whips because they expect a Division, they might as well go out for a bit longer, because I have a lot more to say that will delay the Division. They are very wise to do so.
	New clause 4, which I was addressing, proposes a legal obligation to appoint a former armed forces personnel support officer to every prison and probation service in England and Wales. That would impose an unnecessarily legislative framework. The veterans in custody support programme focuses on the early identification of ex-service individuals who would benefit from extra support. It offers advice on a range of issues from housing and mental health to medals and war pensions. The voluntary sector provides excellent additional support.
	New clause 5 would require financial support to be provided for a range of welfare groups. I pay tribute to the invaluable role played by numerous service and ex-service organisations in promoting the welfare of the armed forces community. Some have been doing so for a very long time. Only this month, we celebrated the 90th anniversary of the Royal British Legion. Indeed, there was a garden party—indoors because it was raining—at No. 10 on Friday, at which the Prime Minister spoke. Members of the Royal British Legion and its supporters, such as Vera Lynn, all appreciated it enormously. Similarly, last week I went to the service at the Guards chapel on the 40th anniversary of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, with which we are in touch a great deal. Many such bodies have an expert understanding of the needs of service and ex-service personnel. Their support sits alongside the provision of facilities from public funds and we have close working relationships with many of them.
	However, it would not be appropriate for the Government to give general financial support to such groups. Registered charities are and should remain independent. It is right that they raise their own funding, whether they are concerned with the armed forces or not. It is a long-standing practice that central Government do not provide funds raised through taxation to assist the core activities of individual charities. In any event, given the number of charities, the Government would not be able to do that in a fair manner. I pay tribute to the many charities that are raising a great deal of money at the moment, such
	as Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and Combat Stress—we have been discussing mental health. They are working to raise funds to support our armed forces and I pay tribute to them.
	New clause 6 proposes the creation of a policy forum for former service personnel. Is there a need for another policy forum and, if so, do we need to legislate to create it? There are already a number of groups that help to shape the delivery of veterans’ welfare. The external reference group on the covenant brings together armed forces advocates from across Government and external members from ex-service organisations. It provides co-ordination for the effort across Government and oversight of the Government’s performance in rebuilding the armed forces covenant, and it allows ex-service organisations and other experts to influence the development of Government policy. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations. There are regular meetings between COBSEO and senior MOD staff and Ministers, including myself. The annual welfare conference organised by the MOD allows many smaller organisations to debate these issues. There are 13 veterans advisory and pensions committees throughout the United Kingdom that provide assistance to the service and ex-service community and local public service providers. They raise awareness in public bodies and the local community about the needs of veterans. I trust that I have made my point that establishing another former armed services personnel policy forum would not offer any tangible benefit.
	I now turn to the second half of amendment 3. [ Interruption. ] For the benefit of people such as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence who have just walked in, perhaps I should repeat what I have said.

William McCrea: Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members once again to be courteous and to listen to the responses. If they want to have conversations outside this business, they can do so outside the Chamber.

Andrew Robathan: For those who have arrived recently, it would be discourteous of me to not respond to those who have raised points, such as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. I have yet to achieve the same length of speech as the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire. [ Interruption. ] Indeed, the night is yet young.
	The second half of amendment 3 sets out nine headings that must be covered in the annual report. I do not deny the importance of any of those topics. Some are broad and some are fairly narrow, such as “debt management” and “domestic violence”. However, it is not a comprehensive list and I am sure that other hon. Members could add many suggestions. We would rather not legislate for such a list because it may change over the next few years. The question is whether we should cram all possible issues into the legislation and turn the annual covenant report into a box-ticking exercise, or whether we want to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to identify and investigate the problems that are actually faced by service people. Amendment 3 would deny the
	Secretary of State the flexibility to deal with the effects of service that are considered to be the most important or relevant at the time of each report.
	Finally on this group of amendments I come to amendment 4, which we do not believe would add a great deal to the Bill. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will seek views and evidence in preparing each annual covenant report. If there are issues, he will respond to them and give a time frame for implementing any recommendations. The amendment would simply get us into questions about who is and who is not an expert in this field. This country is fortunate to have an active community of well informed, constructive and articulate groups that are committed to improving the welfare of service people and want to work with the Government to achieve that. Many are brought together in the external reference group, and I can assure the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that they are not slow in coming forward. We have stated that we will publish their observations alongside the annual report.
	I now turn to the official Opposition’s amendments. I know that Opposition Members who have just come in will be particularly keen to hear about them—[Interruption] —especially the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).

John Woodcock: I’ll take her out.

Andrew Robathan: I do not think the hon. Gentleman needs to offer to do that. That is a bit sexist, if you ask me, but there we go.
	The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire asked earlier from a sedentary position where we got the idea from that there was a £38 billion black hole. May I tell her that it came from the National Audit Office report “Ministry of Defence: The Major Projects Report 2010”?

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Robathan: Well, Dr McCrea—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] Go on then, why not?

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but if the Minister reads the NAO report, he will see that it states that the figure is between £6 billion and £37 billion. The only way we can get to the £37 billion figure is if we include all the forward programming for the forward thing. The problem is that, like a lot of his colleagues, he cannot get away from the spin of central office.

Hon. Members: Forward thing?

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman talks about the “forward thing”, but we have to do the sums, and I am afraid his maths is obviously not very good. If he does not believe that the Ministry of Defence is short of money, he is wrong.
	The Opposition’s amendment 16 represents a further attempt to reduce the discretion of the Secretary of State to consider which subjects to include when preparing his annual report. I have three difficulties with it, and
	they lead me to oppose it.
	[Interruption.] 
	I can find more, if the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) would like.

Lyn Brown: I look forward to it.

Andrew Robathan: Well, one is that the amendment, no doubt with the best of intentions, describes in more detail the subjects to be covered in the covenant report. As drafted, clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to address accommodation, health care, including mental health care, and education. We have included those topics because it is pretty inconceivable that there would ever be circumstances in which they were not relevant. However, the list is meant to be illustrative, not comprehensive. Any attempt to be comprehensive in the clause would run the risk of missing out something significant, and it would be doomed to become out of date as circumstances change. All the topics listed in the amendment are important and deserve consideration by Parliament, yet the list leaves out many other important matters such as pay, recognition and how we treat personnel on deployed operations.
	That leads to the second difficulty with amendment 16. Its supporters may argue that if they fail to make their list comprehensive, the gaps will be filled in by others, hence the reference to
	“such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine.”
	I am a great admirer of the work of the external reference group, as I have made clear to the House on numerous occasions. By coincidence—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State obviously does not want to hear my response to his colleague the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, who has raised a great deal that needs to be covered in the debate. That is why we have a Committee stage in the House of Commons.

Jim Murphy: No!

Andrew Robathan: He obviously does not realise that.
	By coincidence, the external reference group is meeting tomorrow. I offered to go to the meeting, but it wished to consider how it may respond to the covenant report when it comes out. After discussions, it was thought that I might be in the way rather than anything else. The group’s advice and expertise will be of huge benefit to the Government in preparing the annual report, but we cannot place on the group the duty of deciding what subjects the Secretary of State will cover. That must be his decision, so that he is answerable to the House for it.
	Finally—[Interruption.] I mean finally on amendment 16. It would remove the reference to “particular descriptions” of service personnel. That is a vital provision, despite the slightly arcane language, because it allows the Secretary of State to distinguish between different groups rather than cover the whole of the armed forces community when there is no need to do so. Leaving it out would make the annual report unwieldy and less useful.
	That leads us directly to amendment 17. Inquests are a crucial part of how we support those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. Two of my hon. Friends from Wiltshire mentioned the matter earlier. Although inquests allow families to learn in detail how their loved ones died, and help them to reach closure, they also bring home to all of us the
	tragedy of loss and the cost of the operations on which we are embarked. Ensuring that the inquest system is fit for its very important purpose is a responsibility that the Government must never forget.
	However, the amendment makes for me precisely the point that I raised earlier. It is an afterthought. Having tried to list the subjects that the Secretary of State should cover, the Opposition realised that they had left one out. That shows the weakness of trying to come up with a comprehensive list in legislation. Next week, people might come up with another category, but it would be too late to amend the Bill. I hope that we can look forward to a happier time when the operation of the inquest system is of less concern to the armed forces community because we are not involved in deployed operations and there are no fatalities.

Gemma Doyle: It is somewhat rich for the Minister to say that it is we who are treating inquests as an afterthought, given that it is his Government who have scrapped the office of the chief coroner. How would he respond—I urge him to make it a brief response—to the comment of the Royal British Legion that it is a betrayal of service families to scrap that office?

Andrew Robathan: Unfortunately, as the Members on either side of the hon. Lady—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the shadow Secretary of State—will understand, I cannot speak for the Ministry of Justice. It would be beyond my remit. May I also say that she spoke for longer than I have yet achieved? Don’t worry, I’m working on it.
	New clause 13 relates to armed forces advocates. Advocates are an excellent idea, and in UK Government Departments and the devolved Administrations they face in two directions. They ensure that their own Department’s policies take account of the special needs of the armed forces community, and they communicate their Department’s perspective to my officials and external stakeholders.
	I turn briefly to new clause 14, on the ombudsmen. I pay tribute to the parliamentary and local government ombudsmen for their work. I do not think any of us doubt the important role that they can play in helping members of the armed forces community, and they have welcomed the familiarisation events that my officials have organised. However, the new clause is unclear about what exactly the ombudsmen are intended to do, and we are not minded to accept it. The Government will continue to work with public bodies and local authorities to implement our commitments, and we will encourage them to help to remove the disadvantage faced by service people and afford them special treatment where appropriate. The ombudsmen have a vital role to play, but it is not the one described in the new clause.
	Finally—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Yes, finally, I come to the Opposition’s new clause 17. Once again, the concept outlined in it is perfectly reasonable. I want, just as much as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire does, a world in which those who make policy take into account the needs of members of the armed forces community as a matter of routine. The best way of ensuring that we avoid problems of disadvantage is to prevent them from happening in the first place. The issue is how to achieve that. We must consider whether the right course of action is to create a legal duty to
	have regard to certain matters, or to adopt a more practical approach. In the Government’s view, placing a general duty on all public bodies and Ministers in the preparation of all policy would be unhelpful and unfocused. It would lead to more of a box-ticking culture and a cottage industry of assessments. As I have said throughout the debates on the Bill, we are interested in results and want the armed forces community to be looked after better, but that does not involve box-ticking.

Nigel Dodds: I agree with the Minister that results and outcomes are the most important thing, but with reference to the earlier discussion on devolution, how will he ensure that all servicemen and women and ex-servicemen and women are treated equally in all parts of the United Kingdom? There may be some resistance at devolved level, particularly in Northern Ireland where vetoes are in operation.

Andrew Robathan: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I know that he takes the matter very seriously. We did not put forward the devolution settlement, of course—that was done by the previous Government—but we are working with all three devolved Administrations to try to ensure that there is no disadvantage to any ex-service person. However, I absolutely take on board his point and the particular circumstances that he mentions.
	Rather than the system set out in new clause 17, I would prefer one in which I and my ministerial colleagues across Government continue to work with public bodies to ensure as far as possible that they take account of the armed forces covenant in their preparation of policy. Much progress has already been made, and the imposition of a new statutory duty would not be of benefit.
	The Government look to the annual report to be a powerful, flexible tool to focus Parliament’s attention on the key issues of the time. I fear that the Opposition’s proposed amendments would make that task more difficult and impose a package of unnecessary processes. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I have only another 300 pages to go, but I shall leave it at that, and allow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd to wind up.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am not altogether happy with the Minister’s response—in fact, I am desperately unhappy with it—but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: 16, page2,leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert—
	(a) education;
	(b) accommodation;
	(c) healthcare;
	(d) mental healthcare;
	(e) pensions and benefits;
	(f) employment and training;
	(g) support for reservists and their employers;
	(h) the running of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme;
	(i) progress on Armed Forces rehabilitation services; and
	(j) such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine.’.—(Gemma Doyle.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 223, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendments made: 11, page2,line12,at end insert—
	‘(2A) In preparing an armed forces covenant report the Secretary of State must have regard in particular to—
	(a) the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the armed forces;
	(b) the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for service people from membership, or former membership, of the armed forces; and
	(c) the principle that special provision for service people may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces.’.
	Amendment 12, page2,line12,at end insert—
	‘(2B) An armed forces covenant report must state whether, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, any effects covered by the report are such that service people or particular descriptions of service people are at a disadvantage as regards the field or fields in question, when compared with other persons or such descriptions of other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	(2C) Where the Secretary of State’s opinion is that service people or particular descriptions of service people are at a disadvantage as mentioned in subsection (2B), the report must set out the Secretary of State’s response to that.’.
	Amendment 13,page2,line12,at end insert—
	‘(2D) As regards effects covered by an armed forces covenant report—
	(a) the Secretary of State must consider whether the making of special provision for service people or particular descriptions of service people would be justified; and
	(b) where the Secretary of State considers that such provision would be justified, the report must contain a reference to that fact.’.—(Mr  Robathan .)
	Clause 2, as amended,  ordered to stand part of the  Bill .
	Clauses 3 to 14 ordered to stand part of the  Bill
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clauses 15 to 26  ordered to stand part of the  Bill
	Schedule 2 agreed  to .
	Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the  Bill
	Schedule 3 agreed  to .
	Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the  Bill
	Schedules 4 and  5  agreed to.
	Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the  Bill
	Clause  31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the  Bill
	Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the  Bill

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Closure or realignment of Armed Forces bases

‘(1) Prior to commencing a programme of closure or realignment of Armed Forces bases the Secretary of State must—
	(a) prepare a base closure report;
	(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
	(2) The Secretary of State may not proceed with any realignment or closure of armed forces bases without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
	(3) In this section a “base closure report” is the recommendation of the Ministry of Defence for the future Armed Forces basing requirements of the United Kingdom and British Overseas Territories including the criteria used when reaching its recommendations and the priority given to each criterion.
	(4) In this section an “Armed Forces base” is a base or series of installations consisting of facilities necessary for the support of the British Army, Royal Navy or Royal Air Force including security, communications, utilities, plants and systems, or property for which the Armed Forces have responsibility.
	(5) In this section “realignment” means any action that alters the function of a base or any action for the purpose of transitioning the base to serve another branch of the Armed Forces.’.—(Thomas Docherty.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Thomas Docherty: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

William McCrea: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 16—UK Defence Base Closure and Realignment Commission
	‘(1) An independent UK Defence Base Closure and Realignment Commission shall be established.
	(2) The Commission shall be comprised of 12 members reflecting the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
	(3) The Select Committee on Defence of the House of Commons shall, within a fortnight of the conclusion of a Strategic Defence and Security Review, propose the membership of the Commission, giving due weight to—
	(a) the nations and regions of the United Kingdom;
	(b) military and strategic expertise; and
	(c) experience in assessment of economic impacts.
	(4) The proposed membership shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
	(5) The Commission shall convene following the conclusion of a Strategic Defence and Security Review to consider a draft force structure plan submitted by the Secretary of State for Defence, and shall arrange for its reports to be laid before Parliament within six months of the conclusion of such a Review.
	(6) The Commission will make recommendations for base closures and realignments following consideration of the force structure plan, the economic effects of a closure or realignment of a military installation and the strategic military presence across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
	(7) The Secretary of State shall lay a draft Order in Council to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission which shall be brought into effect only if approved by resolution of both Houses.
	(8) The Secretary of State shall not give effect to the draft structure plan referred to in subsection (5) until parliamentary proceedings under subsection (7) are concluded.’.
	Amendment 1, title,line2, after ‘Police’, insert
	‘to provide for parliamentary control of proposals to close or realign bases for the armed forces.’.

Thomas Docherty: New clause 1 stands in my name and those of several colleagues. It is a pleasure, once again, Dr McCrea, to serve under your chairmanship. I very much enjoyed serving on the Finance Bill under your leadership, and I hope that you will keep me in order as we go through this evening’s proceedings.
	New clause 1 should be relatively non-contentious. We have seen, in the last strategic defence and security review, an unprecedented attack on our defence of the realm capabilities: we have seen, as the Secretary of State himself admits, a Treasury and financially driven round of armed forces restructuring; we are seeing the British Army reduced significantly; we have already seen the closure of RAF Kinloss, as well as the loss of our Nimrod capability, which, as the First Sea Lord admitted to the Defence Committee, has placed our maritime surveillance capabilities at a severe disadvantage; and we are also bringing home the British Army from the Rhine.
	Each Government, over the past 40 or 50 years, have reconfigured our armed forces structure to best suit the challenges as they have seen them, but never before have we seen one so radical and based not on the nation’s defence needs, but on the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s needs. For that reason, there is great concern in communities up and down the country that decisions are being made not by the Ministry of Defence, but by the Treasury, and that therefore those decisions are not being made because they are the correct defence decisions but because they are the most expedient or financially convenient for the Treasury and in order to save money.
	I have great respect for the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) and his ministerial colleagues, and I know that they are fighting valiantly to persuade the
	Chancellor that he is plain wrong, but we cannot assume—because we have not seen any letters yet from the Secretary of State to his counterparts—that he will be successful in persuading the Treasury to provide additional money. If the MOD team are unsuccessful, next month there will be some extremely bad news for a number of communities throughout the United Kingdom.

Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what a Labour Government would be doing differently, because I have heard nothing from Opposition Front Benchers to indicate that they would be doing anything different.

Thomas Docherty: I will happily answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. In fact, I would point him towards his colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who has articulated exactly what is wrong with the defence review. What would normally happen is what happened in the defence review that Lord Robertson of Port Ellen carried out in 1998. The correct order of events is to begin by determining our foreign policy objectives and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, what the strategic defence risks facing our nation are. He and I would probably agree on the likely scenarios—one would undoubtedly involve Tehran; another would be terrorism. From those two decisions, we would determine the defence posture that we needed to adopt. Having determined that defence posture, we would configure our armed forces to deliver it. Finally, we would sit down and have a relatively civilised conversation with the Treasury about how best that could be funded. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman’s Government have done the absolute reverse. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said to the Defence Secretary, “This is your pot of money. Now you need to make your armed forces fit it.”
	Our Front Bench team has made it absolutely clear that we would freeze this defence review and have another, fresh defence review based on the criteria and priorities that I have set out. We have made it clear that we would not close RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Leuchars or RAF Marham. We would also approach bringing home the troops from Germany in the following way. First, moving 18,000 soldiers and their dependants back to the United Kingdom would have to be in the best interests of the Army. Secondly, we would make the needs of their families the top priority. The hon. Gentleman has a long record of standing up for constituents at his local Army base, and he will know that we face housing challenges. When we debated the issue previously—in December, I think—he and I were at one in recognising that the previous Government did a lot of work to improve the housing of the families of those in our armed forces, but there is still a lot more to be done.
	Notwithstanding the redundancies that will take place, one of the greatest challenges in bringing back that part of the Army that is based in Germany will be in rehousing probably half the current number and their families at bases around the United Kingdom. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions earlier this year to ask the Government what discussions they had had with the Scottish Government and the Department for Education about how we would educate the 7,000 children who are currently being educated in Germany. It will
	probably shock the Committee to discover that the Government have had no conversations at all with either the Scottish Government or the Department for Education about how to move 7,000 children back from Germany into schools in this country.
	I do not know whether the Under-Secretary—[ Interruption . ]I know that he is paying close attention to this discussion, but will he update the Committee on what discussions he has had with the Scottish Government or the Department for Education in recent weeks. I suspect that the answer will be: “Not much more than we’d had several weeks ago.” Therefore, to answer the question that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) asked—some time ago now—before we made any decisions, not only would we conduct a thorough, rational defence review, but we would ensure that the infrastructure was in place to house those armed forces personnel and their families.
	As we have debated the issue over the past eight months, it has become increasingly clear that the ongoing briefing, leaks and speculation coming out of parts of both the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury have been causing a great deal of distress in various parts of the country. I know that the Minister would dissociate himself from any such leaks or briefings against the Army or the Air Force, or about the thinking, but we have left those communities in a state of uncertainty and limbo for too long.

Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is not just the distress caused to the service and non-service communities in places such as Moray, Fife, Norfolk and elsewhere? Scores of businesses are going to the wall because of the delay in the review process. It is absolutely right to highlight the distress caused for service families—“Will I remain in service?”, “Will I remain here?”, “What will I do with my house?”, “What will I do about the education of my children?”—but there is also an existential question for the many people in those areas whose businesses are going to the wall totally unnecessarily.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. One thing that the Government have not yet fully grasped is that a lot of those service personnel will have been at their bases for significant periods, particularly those at Royal Air Force bases. Indeed, one of the differences between the Army and the Air Force is that those in the Royal Air Force tend to spend the vast majority of their careers based in one location. I was recently told the story of some aircraft mechanics who had been at the same base for going on for two decades. People make family connections. Their husbands or wives move with them permanently to the bases at which they are stationed, and they then seek local employment and raise their families in the area. There will also be local businesses that depend on work from those RAF bases, as the hon. Gentleman said. They now face a period of great uncertainty.
	I say very gently to the Minister that we have seen the date gradually slipping back. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that our understanding now is that we will not get a decision until the very day that the House rises. I would not for a moment seek to besmirch the Ministry
	of Defence’s thinking, but some uncharitable people outside the Chamber might suggest that the Government were hoping to sneak out the announcement on the last day when no one was looking, although I am sure that Mr Speaker would ensure that the Secretary of State at least came to the Chamber.

Andrew Robathan: Were any Minister to try to slip something out on the last day, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be here to ensure that they did not get away with it.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the Minister for that, and I am happy to confirm that I will not be going anywhere on the last day for that reason. However, I am sure that if the Secretary of State waited until the last moment and if it then slipped his mind to request an oral statement, Mr Speaker would ensure, for the probity of the House, that he found a suitable opportunity—

Andrew Robathan: indicated dissent.

Thomas Docherty: The Minister shakes his head. I understand that there might be some vacancies coming up at the Department of Health shortly. I think that he might be up for promotion, so I could not possibly comment on whether he would be on the Front Bench next to the Secretary of State for Health—although the Defence Secretary is a GP, of course, and would be eminently suitable as a Health Secretary, if such a vacancy were to come up. However, having to wait until 19 July—the last day before the recess—is frankly not a comfortable position to be in.
	I understand why the Ministry of Defence did not wish to make an announcement during the period of purdah for the Scottish elections. When the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife had a debate in the House on RAF Leuchars in January, the Minister of State made it clear that he did not wish to do anything that might upset the election results—I should point out to him that putting that decision off did not do the Lib Dems much good in North East Fife. However, we are now well past the Scottish elections. There is no particular reason why the Government could not come to the House now and announce the decisions that we know they have made.
	The purpose of my new clause is to ensure parliamentary oversight of the decisions made by the Ministry of Defence. As I said earlier, we are talking about a unique set of closures. We have probably not seen anything like it since the days when Denis Healey was a Minister for the armed forces and we reconfigured and abandoned our positions east of Aden. Now, however, the decisions are being driven entirely by the Treasury.
	The purpose of new clause 1, which thankfully I will not read into the record, is not to affect the way in which the Ministry of Defence gathers information. It does not seek to make the process more transparent or, as the Minister said earlier, to tie the hands of the Government so that they cannot carry out these processes. The new clause proposes that, once the Ministry of Defence has determined which bases it wants to close or realign—for example, by switching their use from the Royal Air Force to the Army, or, as we read in Scotland on Sunday at the weekend, by switching the Condor base in Arbroath from the Royal Marines to the Army—the
	decisions would be subject to two conditions. First, the Secretary of State would be required to lay a report before the House setting out not only his rationale for making the decisions but the weighting he has given.
	Those colleagues who have attended the Adjournment debates on these matters here and in Westminster Hall will have noticed that there has been inconsistency between the views expressed by the various Ministers in the Ministry of Defence about what weighting is being given to each of the criteria: the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the other Under-Secretary of State—he is the Minister for aviation, as far as I can tell—seem to have different views. One Minister will tell us that the finances are paramount; another will say that defence needs come first; yet another will tell us that the RAF’s needs are the most important, while another says that the Army’s needs are the priority. Then we get back to the arguments about the socio-economic arguments and the wider impacts of the decisions that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has mentioned. Those are all valid arguments, and the Ministry is right to consider the socio-economic factors, the financial costs to the Treasury and how best a base can be recycled for use by another service. However, that all needs to be done in a transparent and coherent manner.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. He referred earlier to the unique context in which he is proposing his new clause. Does he not regret the fact that a Bill such as this was never introduced under the Labour Government? We have suffered base closures in Northern Ireland that had a serious impact on the local communities, yet none of these considerations was discussed at the time, despite the best efforts of some of us to point out the consequences. I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot go back in time, but will he acknowledge that that is the case?

Thomas Docherty: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I know that he takes a keen interest in the armed forces. He is right to say that the previous Government did not get everything right, but I am not sure whether a Bill was ever introduced to put this process on to a statutory footing. I think that the idea is relatively new. I first came across it when, as part of the British-American Parliamentary Group, I visited the Pentagon last September. The process was explained to the delegation at that time; I think that it has been in place there for about 18 years. It is possible, therefore, that previous Governments were not fully au fait with how the system has worked in America, and that could be why we have not had this debate before. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the closures that took place in Northern Ireland were, thankfully, driven by the peace process and by the leadership of the then Prime Minister and members of parties that are present today. That is obviously different from the situation today, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is calling the shots—please pardon the pun—on the Ministry of Defence.
	Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would compile a report setting out what weight he was giving to each of the criteria, which might be quite mixed. Having had a chance to review the report, a future Defence Select Committee might wish to invite the
	Secretary of State to appear before it and to scrutinise it, although I cannot bind any such Committee to do so. The report would then be subject to a straight-up-and-down vote in the House. There would not be an option to cherry-pick individual bases; it would be a straight-up-and-down report, as they have in the United States. If the House really felt that the Government had got it wrong, it would send the matter back and ask the Government to reconsider.
	Crucially, no one could play politics with the process, because they could not pick off one individual base. For example, if there were a base in what was previously a Lib-Dem seat—I suspect that there will not be many of those left after the next election—or in one of the new Conservative marginals that might pop up, it is quite possible that a less strong-minded Secretary of State for Defence might give in to parliamentary pressure from his colleagues. The process I propose would prevent that from happening, because it involves a straight-up-and-down vote. Only when the Secretary of State had gained parliamentary approval could he proceed with the closure of the bases.
	I want briefly to comment on new clause 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Moray, for which he is keen to press the case. I have adopted a very different approach from his. The key factor for me and other members of the Defence Committee when we visited the Pentagon in April was that the process should be kept in-house, and my approach would keep it within the Ministry of Defence. I suspect that the Minister, who I know is studying hard before making his response, will be busy coming up with new arguments. The problem that he has with the new clause is that it would keep the discretion over decision making within the MOD. I think that the American process takes two years, and I am concerned about the uncertainty that that could cause if a similar process were adopted here. I look forward to hearing how the hon. Member for Moray would prevent the process from spilling over in that way. I am sure that the Minister has worked up a thorough and detailed response, and I also look forward to hearing his arguments.

Angus Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I have listened closely to his arguments, and I found them tremendously persuasive. When discussing his new clause and mine, the question we must ask is whether the way in which the Ministry of Defence deals with base closures or realignments is adequate. Is the way in which the criteria are established widely understood? Is there transparency and consistency in the process?
	It is well known to the Minister that I represent the most defence-dependent constituency in Scotland. We have already heard about the sad and, I believe, avoidable closure of RAF Kinloss. The present basing review is also considering the potential to make this a unique double base closure involving RAF Lossiemouth as well. I therefore have a close understanding of the way in which the Ministry of Defence deals with base closures and realignments. I hope that, having listened to me and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, the Minister will at least concede that there are areas in which improvements could be made.
	The Secretary of State has been gracious with his time, and he has met me on three occasions to discuss the impact of base closure considerations in order that I might share those matters with the community that I represent. The insight from those meetings was quite constructive, because what he said to me then was not what he has said in the Chamber thus far. On the day of the announcement of the strategic defence and security review, he told me that he understood that Moray was a very defence-dependent constituency, and that any delay would cause distress to the service and non-service personnel and have an impact on the local economy. He was confident that the basing review affecting RAF Lossiemouth would be concluded by December—December 2010.
	Shortly thereafter, the Secretary of State had another meeting with me at which he said that the considerations in the basing review had changed. He said that it was no longer just a consideration about where Tornado aircraft should be based—and hence a straight choice between RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Marham—as the Ministry of Defence was looking at issues such as the repatriation of UK forces from Germany, so it made sense for the Department to roll into one all the issues around basing. He was confident at that time that a recommendation would be made by the Department by February and that the decision would be taken within weeks thereafter. That meant spring 2011. Then, at our third meeting, I was told that the announcement on RAF Lossiemouth and all other bases would not take place on the second date that had been promised, but would take place some time before the summer recess.
	I have to tell the Minister that I represent people who are making decisions about their mortgages, their rent and their children’s education, and businesses that are finding it difficult enough in these times of economic austerity to get a loan from the bank and are holding it together from one month to the next. Thus, having been told authoritatively, as I was by the Secretary of State, that an announcement would be made within weeks—that is, before Christmas—it is not good enough to then be told that, unfortunately, because the criteria for the basing decisions were being changed it would not happen until the spring after the recommendation at the end of February and on and on, only to be told at the end that we shall have to wait until just before the summer recess. That is no way to run a basing review.
	When we talk about a covenant, it should not be a covenant only with our service personnel; surely it should also be a covenant with the communities that have associations, long and deep, with the armed forces, whether they be based in Fife, Moray, Norfolk or anywhere else. The Ministry of Defence owes it to our defence communities to treat them better than they have been treated throughout this basing review.
	My experience led me to try to understand what represents best practice—what I encountered is certainly not best practice—in the United Kingdom. I visited the United States, which has two approaches that I believe it is important for Members who care about defence matters to understand. Frankly, I believe them to be the gold standard.
	First, the process through which decisions on base realignment and closure are considered in the United States is totally transparent. The criteria need to be
	explained by the Department of Defence in the US—and the procedure is not ad hoc. First of all, the DOD needs to come forward with an explanation of how it plans to base its service personnel. These matters have since time immemorial—whether it be in the United States or in the United Kingdom—always been the subject of discussion and questions arise such as whether there has been political intervention. Are decisions made more on the basis of geography, which might have more to do with the advantage of political parties, than on military or strategic considerations?
	The US took a decision more than 20 years ago that it needed to deal with base realignments and closure in a totally different way. It still protected the important role of the Department of Defence in making suggestions about what it believed needed to happen, about which bases should remain open and which should be changed through use realignment. What I have sought to crystallise in my new clause is the fact that a commission was created and its members were people with real military experience. Nominations were made from both sides of the aisle to ensure that it was a non-partisan process.
	The commission’s criteria include ensuring that the impact of the decisions brings about a defence footprint across the United States—not just in one or other part of it—and looking closely at the recommendations of the DOD. The commission then makes a recommendation that goes to the Hill for approval on a “yea or nay, take it or leave it” basis. This ensures that party political considerations are taken out of the equation. It ensures that the recommendations coming forth from the commission make sense across the US. All the legislators I spoke to from both sides of US politics said that this process was a Godsend, which had made a profound difference to how these matters were dealt with in the US. I believe that that is worthy of consideration.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife made the point that it is important to have parliamentary oversight; I totally agree. The way in which our review has been conducted over recent months has, frankly, been lamentable. For one thing, those of us who are reasonably close to understanding how the processes have worked are aware that the criteria have changed and that political decisions have been made about how many bases should be in different parts of the UK, with people then being asked to get a fit around which bases they should be. That is no way to run an orderly base realignment after the strategic defence and security review has been concluded.
	I agree that there should be parliamentary oversight; this should not be conducted only by the Ministry of Defence. I have no reason to believe that the information provided to Ministers to help them make their decision is not well thought through: I am sure it is, but it has taken such a long time. The issue is not just about parliamentary approval, however, as there needs to be a degree of independent insight, which is why I believe we should have a commission nominated by the Defence Select Committee.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman says that the information might have been well thought out within the Ministry of Defence, but is it not the case that what we have seen is a rushed and ill-thought-out defence review that was thrown together on the back of a fag packet at the very last minute? That applies to the
	decision to take the Ark Royal out of service and the decision on the aircraft carriers. Is not the Ministry of Defence now having to play catch-up after the ill-conceived decisions made last October?

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes valid criticisms of the SDSR, but I am talking specifically about the process in which issues of base realignment and closure are addressed. There was some debate across the Chamber about the criticisms of the SDSR, but I think that might have detracted from both the hon. Gentleman’s proposals and mine. Frankly, our proposals should win favour from the Government Front-Bench team. Why? Because this is the gold standard. This is the best way in which the very difficult process of base realignment and closure has been dealt with, very effectively, by another nation.
	I have not yet decided whether to press the new clause to the vote. My proposals might be new to the Government Front-Bench team, so I will be looking for assurances that the Government acknowledge that the process of base realignment and closure should be subject to improvement. If the Government propose ways of ensuring that there will be no delays, that there will be transparency, and that the criteria used in the current round of base realignments and closures will be changed, I may be persuaded not to press the new clause to a vote. However, I believe that communities—in Moray, in Fife, in Norfolk or anywhere else—that have suffered as a result of delays deserve something better. If at least one good thing comes out of this botched process, namely an acknowledgement from the Government that they could and should improve it, I will not proceed with my new clause, in the hope that the Government will return at some stage with better-thought-through approach for the future.

Gemma Doyle: The Government have created a huge amount of worry and uncertainty through their decisions about bases in Scotland and, indeed, other parts of the country. It is entirely understandable that communities feel aggrieved about the process that the Government are undertaking, and I sympathise with the aims of both my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). As we have heard, serious complaints have been made about the process. Defence Ministers have been dragged into the House on a number of occasions of late, and this is yet another area in which they need to get their act together.

Andrew Robathan: I have huge sympathy for those who have been put in a position of uncertainty and, perhaps, adversely affected by the closure of bases. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has stood up for his constituents a great deal, and he has made the point that it is his job to make. I take that entirely on board. I am afraid I cannot say that we will change everything, but I will deal with his points later. First, however, I will deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty)—and let me say for the avoidance of doubt that I do know who he is.
	New clause 1 is very unwelcome at a time when we are trying to streamline the way in which the Government conduct operations. It would require the prior approval
	of both Houses of Parliament to any alteration in the function of, and any closure of, any of our bases anywhere in the world. As well as bases in the United Kingdom, it would affect bases in Germany, Cyprus, the Falkland Islands and Afghanistan. That would hamstring our operations. It would involve our revealing publicly our plans and, no doubt, a great deal of highly sensitive information so that the Houses could debate it.
	Even assuming that the real intention of the new clauses and amendment relate only to bases in the United Kingdom, as I am sure is the case, I believe that the proposed action would be inappropriate. In practice, Parliament would be notified of any major base closures or realignments. The Department already undertakes a significant amount of consultation on stake sales with local authorities, interest groups, trade unions and local Members of Parliament. Notwithstanding the widespread view that we do not listen, I have undertaken consultation with local Members of Parliament about certain cases, not necessarily involving big bases but involving MOD sites. I have taken a couple of issues very much to heart, and am looking into them in detail. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not just a case of window-dressing.
	Base closures and changes are already subject to a number of legislative requirements through, for example, planning consents and the need for sustainability assessments. Parliament already has ample opportunity to make its views about proposed major changes known to the Government, and Parliament and indeed the nation will no doubt hold the Government to account for the decisions that they make. We believe, however, that it must be right for the Government to make those decisions. Requiring advance approval would constitute an abandonment of the Government’s responsibility, and would make vital strategic decision-making impossible.

Thomas Docherty: I asked earlier what discussions the MOD had been having with stakeholders such as the Scottish Government and the Department for Education about school provision, which was clearly a huge problem. Are those discussions still taking place?

Andrew Robathan: The Minister for the Armed Forces has been dealing with specific bases. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information for which he has asked, but I should be happy for him to meet me or, perhaps more appropriately, my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. I shall mention that to my hon. Friend, although he will spot it in Hansard in any event. Amendment 1, of course, is linked to new clause 1.
	I did not know that the hon. Member for Moray had engaged in a discussion that seems to have continued for longer than he may have wished, but I think it important for us to get this right. Contrary to what people think, we care what happens not just to our service personnel but to the people who work in and around service bases, because it affects their lives. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in the review of defence basing and estates requirements over the last year, not only to represent his constituency interests but because RAF Lossiemouth has featured heavily in speculation. Given that the hon. Gentleman is his party’s defence spokesman, of course he is interested in what is happening in Scotland.
	One of the problems with this new clause is to do with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in the United States. The hon. Gentleman may have offered that before as a model that we should follow, but we take the view that the Defence Secretary must act in the best interests of defence—that is what he is appointed to do—and where defence assets and personnel are based must depend on strategic considerations for the security and defence of the United Kingdom and value for money for the taxpayer.
	I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the process used in the United States, but in our parliamentary system the Secretary of State for Defence is accountable to Parliament in a way that does not apply in the United States. Members of Parliament can, and do, make representations directly to Ministers, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that those representations are heard. This is not pure window dressing, so I hope he, too, will not press his amendment to a Division.

Thomas Docherty: I will be brief, as an important set of new clauses are to be discussed next and I know colleagues wish to have a full debate on them.
	I have been heartened by some of the Minister’s remarks. I did not agree with all he has said, but he nevertheless offered an eloquent defence of his position. I was particularly heartened by his offering me a meeting with his ministerial colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I will be delighted to accept that offer. In turn, I am sure he will be delighted to know that the Defence Committee has decided to undertake a review of the basing decisions in the autumn. I suspect he and his colleagues will therefore eagerly anticipate appearing before the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who chairs the Select Committee, along with his Select Committee colleagues, including myself.
	Based on the assurances I have received and the good debate we have had this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Voluntary discharge of under-18s

‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 329 (Terms and conditions of enlistment and service), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
	“(3A) The regulations shall make provision that any person under the age of 18 shall be entitled to end their service with a regular force by giving not less than 14 days’ notice in writing to their commanding officer, and shall ensure that any person enlisting under the age of 18 is informed of this right when they enlist.”’.—(Dr Huppert.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Julian Huppert: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

William McCrea: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11 —Enlistment of minors
	‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 328(2)(c) (Enlistment) the words “without the consent of prescribed persons” are omitted.’.

Julian Huppert: It is a great pleasure to move this amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who is present. It would allow under-18s to leave the armed forces as of right, if they so wished. There have already been some discussions on this with the Minister, so I shall not detain the Committee for too long. It is an important issue, however, and a number of groups have worked hard, along with my hon. Friend, myself and others, to press for this change. I wish to note in particular the efforts of the Quakers in Britain, especially Michael Bartlet, who has spearheaded much of the awareness-raising that has led to our reaching this point.
	The proposal to allow under-18s to leave as of right has also been supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I should declare that I was a member of it at the time, which may or may not be coincidental. It gave a clear recommendation that—astonishingly—fits extremely well with the amendment I am now proposing:
	“We recommend that a right to discharge for under-18s be established, and that all those recruited under the age of 18 be told of this right.”

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to under-18s having a right to leave. I had the privilege of serving on the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee and we took some evidence on this matter, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would accept that they do currently have a right to leave, but that the length of notice is different from that which he proposes.

Julian Huppert: They do not have the right to leave before they turn 18. After the first six months, a 17-year-old, or a 16-year-old even, does not have the right to leave. In the case of the Army, they are there for, I believe, six years after they pass that first six months. In practice, that is not necessarily enforced, but that is not the same as their having a right.

Thomas Docherty: I have heard the argument about five or six years before. When personnel turn 18, they have an absolute right to choose to leave at that point. I accept that, perhaps, that is not as well publicised as it might be, but this talk of their being in for five or six years is not entirely accurate.

Julian Huppert: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but I think he would agree that somebody who joins on their 16th or 17th birthday currently has no right to leave, although in practice they might be allowed to, which is a slightly different issue.
	Why is this an issue for under-18s? We have a whole lot of rules for under-18s: we do not allow them to vote—although many of us think that we should because they are adult enough to do that—we do not allow them to have credit cards or to enter into other legal decisions because they are not treated as adults who are able to commit themselves for such a long time; and they cannot bind themselves to a credit agreement to pay a certain sum of money the next month, except in very exceptional circumstances. They can, however, commit themselves to an extended period in the armed forces.
	It is quite clear that in many cases they are allowed to leave, even though they do not have that right. It is hard to be sure, however, whether that covers every case of somebody under 18 who wishes to leave. We would not know if they were too scared to ask their commanding officer or if some other social pressures made it hard. We know that there are cases of bullying in the armed forces and although I am sure we all abhor the fact that that goes on, there are a number of such cases and it is hard to know what would happen then.
	The situation is unclear, so we proposed an amendment to make it absolutely clear what was and was not allowed. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the report produced by the Select Committee on the Bill after the amendment was tabled and after a number of discussions, parliamentary questions and so on. He has made a welcome announcement, stating that
	“for those under the age of 18, the ability to be discharged will in future be a right up to the age of 18, subject to an appropriate period of consideration or cooling off.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 26WS.]
	I want to place on record my thanks to the Minister for taking that step, which is very welcome to a number of the people involved. I have a few specific questions, however, and I hope that he will be able to clarify the situation for me.
	First, what is this period of consideration or cooling off and roughly how long would it last? My amendment allowed 14 days’ notice; I suspect he has a different figure in mind and it would be helpful to know what it is. The second part of the JCHR’s report and of the amendment state that any person enlisting under the age of 18 should be informed of their right and I hope the Minister would agree that it would ideal for them to be told that they have it, even though he would hope that many of them would not avail themselves of it. Finally, will he update the Committee on the process as it stands? Has he given instructions that the rule should apply as of now and will people be told that there is this right? He talks about requiring secondary legislation to make such a provision, which I look forward to seeing, but when will such an instrument be laid before the House?

John McDonnell: I want, briefly, to support new clause 7 and I also want to express my thanks to the Minister for his statement about improving the system. He seems somewhat surprised to get unanimous support—

Andrew Robathan: It is amazing.

John McDonnell: I can assure him that it will not last for long.
	I also want to argue in favour of new clause 11. My new clause, like new clause 7, is based on the briefings that we have received from the Quakers and I pay tribute to them for the work they have done in raising the issues about the recruitment of under-18s into the military. I also want to thank Michael Bartlet for the work he has done in raising the profile of the issue over some time.
	My new clause would simply end the recruitment of anybody under the age of 18, because I find it extraordinary that when it comes to military recruitment or their engagement in the military, we do not treat under-18s as
	minors. Legally, that is what they are. I therefore find it extraordinary that we allow children to sign up to involvement in the military, legally—currently—making a commitment for six years. They are minors, signing up to a process that could put them in harm’s way and which certainly puts them under a disciplinary regime and environment that has made a number of them vulnerable over the years.
	For the record, I understand that there are currently 580 16-year-olds and 1,970 17-year-olds serving in the British armed forces. I have been surprised to learn from parliamentary answers and MOD information that between April 2007 and April 2010, three 17-year-old service personnel were deployed to Afghanistan and two to Iraq. I have also been concerned to learn, in answer to a parliamentary question, that on 1 December 2010, there were five under-18s serving sentences at the military corrective training centre at Colchester for having gone absent without leave.
	We have had various debates in the Chamber condemning the practice in developing countries of recruiting child soldiers, but that is what we are doing—we are recruiting children into the military services. As the MOD information shows, we are not only sending them to war zones but subjecting them to military discipline that involves their detention in a corrective establishment. I just do not find that acceptable and I do not think it is a practice to which this country should adhere. The Minister might correct me on this, but I understand that we are now the only European country that recruits under-18s to the armed forces. I would welcome a rethink from the Government about the whole practice of recruiting children into the military and the possibility of phasing it out. I understand that the Minister might not want to accept the amendment this evening and I will not press it, but I would welcome consideration from the Government about phasing out the recruitment of children to the military.
	We have a duty to protect young people, which sometimes involves protecting them against decisions that they make at an age at which, in other circumstances, we would not consider it appropriate for them to make the sort of commitment that is involved or to put themselves in situations that might lead to their being in harm’s way or to their lives being at risk.

Tessa Munt: I thought this might be a good opportunity to point out that new clause 7 would alleviate some of the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. With extensions to education and training in 2013 and 2015 up to the ages of 17 and 18, more young people might find themselves momentarily attracted to joining the forces. They can get through the first part but, as the hon. Gentleman’s point about the young people who have gone absent without leave shows, they sometimes experience a crisis in their lives. New clause 7 would alleviate the problem.

John McDonnell: I think that new clause 7 would bring an immense improvement to current practices and I support it, but I object in principle to the recruitment of children into the military. For 13 years, I was the part-time house father of a children’s home when they were run as family units and one could pursue one’s
	own career while also operating as the father of a family group. In that time we dealt with a large number of young people from extremely disturbed backgrounds and prepared them for fostering into ordinary homes. A number of those who came to us were extremely vulnerable and I remember many of them going into military service at a very young age, almost because they were looking for the security of an institution because they had, frankly, been institutionalised as a result of their lives in care. At the time, I thought those young people were extremely vulnerable and were making the wrong decision. At the age of 16, people are too young to make that major decision to go into the armed forces and put themselves under a disciplinary regime that can result, as it has done, in a number of youngsters being put in corrective establishments. As I have said, some others have been sent to war zones. I would welcome a careful rethink from the Government about this issue and I hope that they will consider coming back with proposals to accept the measures in new clause 7 and to follow other European countries in phasing out the recruitment of children into the Army.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for their compliments. I am not used to that and, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, I do not expect it to continue. Never mind. We enjoy these things while they happen.
	I was interested in some of the comments that were made because I think the hon. Member for Cambridge is quite keen on reducing the voting age to 16, which seems not entirely at one with some of the things that were said during the debate. However, I shall not dwell on that.
	Young people who join the armed services at the ages of 16 and 17 are a valued source of manpower—it is particularly man power in the Army—but we take the duty of care seriously too. When the subject was first raised with me, I had not appreciated that there was what we might describe as a certain element of confusion over whether people could leave at the age of 18. The situation is changing, but currently if a young man—they are typically young men—approaching his 18th birthday said that he was unhappy, he would be dubbed an unhappy minor and in practice he would be allowed to go after a cooling-off period. However, the situation is slightly confused.
	People who go absent without leave do not necessarily do so because they want to leave the armed forces. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington might say that that is ridiculous, but sometimes people go AWOL because they have done something wrong and they do not want to face the music. There can be other reasons.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) has spoken to me about the situation too and, after listening to people and to the debate in the Select Committee, it seems to me that it is important to clarify the position. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, people will have a right to leave up to the age of 18. However, I am not saying that we want them to leave, so we shall give them a cooling-off period. It is likely to be longer than two weeks. It is a genuine change and will be enacted in statute, because it is right that people
	understand that they do not have to beg to leave; they have the right to leave, but we shall make every effort to dissuade good young people from leaving if we wish to retain them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale. People are currently informed of their rights and that will continue. The answer to his question is the old parliamentary expression, “We expect secondary legislation soon.” I hope it will be before the recess, but it may not be. I do not want to get it wrong.
	I turn to people who are less satisfied, if I can put it that way, such as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. We want good young people to join the armed forces and we get a pretty high quality of recruit these days, as I think the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) would agree. Prohibiting the enlistment of people under the age of 18 would be to the detriment of the armed forces. We take real pride in the fact that the armed forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people.
	Not all the young people who join the armed forces come from happy backgrounds. The hon. Gentleman talked about young people leaving care and joining the armed forces because they saw it as a way out of their difficult circumstances. It is important to bear that in mind.
	I shall digress if I may, although it is absolutely germane to the discussion. Probably—notwithstanding other claims—the most decorated man in the British Army at the moment has two conspicuous gallantry medals, a George medal and an MBE. He is now a lieutenant-colonel. When I met him last year, he told me that he spent the night before he joined the Army, aged 17, in a police cell in Bradford. He will not mind my saying this because he told me quite openly—[ Interruption. ] I know; being in Bradford is a bit much—[ Laughter. ] Oh God, I’ve let myself in for a few questions now. Humour never translates on to the pages of Hansard.
	That man decided that the future for him was either one that did not look very good and might involve further visits to prison and police cells, or that he would join the Army. He joined the Army at the age of 17 and he has not just made an outstanding career for somebody without great educational qualifications but, if I may say so, has made himself a role model for many people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Kevan Jones: Does the Minister agree that although there are such individuals, there are also many who go, for example, through the Harrogate college and gain qualifications, or through the excellent Welbeck college where they do A-levels? Not all are from the kind of background that he describes, although I accept that some are. Those colleges give them life chances and educational opportunities that they might not get elsewhere.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is right. I could not agree more. We get some very high-quality people—I presented the prizes at Welbeck two weeks ago, and there is also the apprentice college, Harrogate.

Tessa Munt: I could not agree more that young people should be in college or in education of one sort or another. If that is attached to a military establishment, that is fantastic. Will the Minister confirm, however,
	that three 17-year-old service personnel were deployed to Afghanistan and two to Iraq between April 2007 and April 2010? I know that that is not very many young people, but the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who is no longer in his place, implied that in Committee he had heard evidence that that did not happen. I may be incorrect. Can the Minister clarify the position?

Andrew Robathan: I think the hon. Lady has in her hand a parliamentary answer that I gave her on exactly this issue. Those cases occurred under the previous Government and it was a mistake in each case. Funnily enough, the young men involved wanted to go on operations. A mistake was made, out of 24,000 reservists, as we have just heard, deployed on operations Telic and Herrick. Thousands are deployed each year and I am afraid that mistakes are made. If memory serves me right without having the answer in front of me, I think that two of the individuals mentioned were within a few days of their 18th birthday, and one was found out and sent back. We try to rectify mistakes when they are made, but there are a large number of people and if they do not own up to their age, that can be a problem. We do not intend that that should happen and we will pursue the matter to make sure that it does not.

John McDonnell: So that we get absolute clarity, it is the unanimous view of the Committee, therefore, that no minor should be taken to a war zone. Let us get that on the record.

Andrew Robathan: That has been policy since before I joined the armed forces, which I am afraid to say was in 1970. [Interruption.] No, not 1870. It was 1970.
	I can assure the Committee that we recognise the need for special care in recruiting and training under-18s. There are currently no plans to revisit the Government’s recruitment policy for under-18s, which is fully compliant with the optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

Cathy Jamieson: The Minister may have been about to answer my question. What action has been taken since the UNCRC 2008 report, which asked the Government to look again at their proactive policy of recruiting under-18s? [Interruption.]

Andrew Robathan: I hear from a sedentary position the suggestion that perhaps the previous Government did not take any great action on that. We do not intend to revisit our policy on the matter. However, it is important to say that all service in the armed forces is voluntary, unlike in many other armies around the world. Furthermore, no person under the age of 18, because such a person is deemed a minor, can join the armed forces unless the application is accompanied by the formal written consent of a parent or guardian. As I have just said, our defence policy is that no such service personnel are knowingly deployed on any operation outside the UK that could result in their becoming engaged in hostilities. We take very seriously the duty of care of all recruits, particularly those aged under 18, who, inevitably, can be more vulnerable than some older people. This is not
	a partisan position, because we have inherited this from the last Government and it has run through several Governments.
	To this end, parents or guardians of all younger personnel, as well as the applicants themselves, are given comprehensive written and face-to-face guidance on the terms and conditions of service and the right to discharge during the selection process, and will be when it changes. This occurs at various times before the parent or guardian provides formal written consent for the child to enter service.
	In the light of that and our clear determination to give good careers to young people under the age of 18, be it for three or 30 years, I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge will withdraw the motion.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Minister for answering all my questions. My only reservation is that I hope that the time period for cooling off will not be too much longer than two weeks. Sixteen days would be absolutely fine. I look forward to seeing what the Minister says.
	I also thank the Minister for his comments about adulthood at 16. I look forward to his joining our campaign to get votes at 16. That is a welcome step. He shakes his head, but I assume he really means to be supportive. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15
	 — 
	Defence statistics

‘(1) The Secretary of State for Defence shall publish annual statistics on—
	(a) defence spending by each Government Office Region by—
	(i) equipment expenditure;
	(ii) non-equipment expenditure;
	(iii) service personnel costs;
	(iv) civilian personnel costs; and
	(b) defence spending in each local authority area by—
	(i) equipment expenditure;
	(ii) non-equipment expenditure;
	(iii) service personnel costs;
	(iv) civilian personnel costs.
	(2) The Secretary of State for Defence shall publish annual estimates of national and regional employment dependent on MoD expenditure and defence exports.’.—(Angus Robertson.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Angus Robertson: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
	It is a pleasure to speak in favour of new clause 15 on defence statistics, which, for some, might appear a dry subject but which, after a strategic defence and security review and during an ongoing basing review, is quite important. It is especially important to those of us who have concerns that the way in which the Ministry of Defence has been managing its infrastructure, manning levels and spending is grossly imbalanced. We know all this because it has consistently provided parliamentary answers that show it to be true. It is true in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in a number of English regions. The worrying prospect is that the result of this
	basing review will confirm that many of the trends that I have raised repeatedly here, in Westminster Hall and in parliamentary questions will continue.
	There are reasons to be worried. For example, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that since the last strategic defence review in 1997, 10,000 defence jobs have been lost in Scotland. We also know that between the last strategic defence review and this current review, the gap between Scotland’s population share of defence spending and the amount of money actually spent on defence in Scotland was £5.6 billion. The underspend statistics for Wales and Northern Ireland during the same period are £6.7 billion and £1.8 billion.

Gemma Doyle: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that if he had his way and Scotland was independent, the MOD footprint would be non-existent in Scotland. He may wish to come to an arrangement with England or with the MOD in an independent Scotland, but he has to assume that all military assets would be withdrawn. Furthermore, he supports the scrapping of Trident so, implicitly, the MOD spend would be less than it is now.

Angus Robertson: I am interested in the hon. Lady’s intervention. I am sorry that she did not take the opportunity to support the case I am making. The case about defence statistics is quite important, which is why the leader of her party in the Scottish Parliament, Iain Gray, put his name to a joint submission that used those very statistics, together with the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party and the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament. Incidentally, all those party leaders have hinted at their resignations, having lost in the recent Scottish Parliament elections. None the less, all three leaders, together with the Scottish National party, put their names to that submission.
	The hon. Lady wishes to entice me to talk about the advantages of independence in relation to defence, which I am happy to do at any point. I note that she did not take the opportunity to apologise for the loss of 10,000 defence jobs in Scotland while her party was in power. I am more than confident that using our population share of defence spending in Scotland would provide a net increase in spending and manpower, protecting the bases that have been closed by both her party and the Conservatives.
	To return to the publication of defence statistics, I would have thought it was a matter of concern to Members on both sides of the House that rather than continuing to provide statistics on these matters, the UK Government have simply stopped answering parliamentary questions and providing the important information. Members who have not looked at the issue might be asking themselves, “Are the statistics that the SNP is taking about available in other countries?” The answer is, “Yes, of course they are.” The Canadian Department of National Defence provides statistics to its parliamentarians across the range of expenditure. In the United States, members of Congress and everyone else can access information on defence spend across the communities and states of the US. Until recently, that was the case here in the UK.
	On jobs, we know that when Labour left office there were 10,480 fewer people in defence jobs than there were in 1997. That leaves the current uniform contingent
	in Scotland at 12,000, which is significantly less than our population share. Looking at the Government Front Bench, I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Defence acknowledged when giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee that there had indeed been a disproportionate reduction in defence jobs in Scotland under Labour. However, it must be pointed out that for a number of years we had consistent answers to parliamentary questions on service personnel costs, civilian personnel costs, equipment expenditure and non-equipment expenditure.
	In fact, there is a complete dataset from 2002 to 2008 showing a number of important but very worrying facts. It shows that the defence underspend increased from £749 million in 2002-03 to £1.2 billion in 2007-08, a 68% increase in just six years. Between 2002 and 2008 the underspend on defence in Scotland under the Labour Government was a mammoth £5.6 billion, contributed by Scottish taxpayers to the MOD but not spent on defence in Scotland. Between 2005 and 2008 there was a drastic real-terms decline year on year in defence spending in Scotland.
	I note that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) is not seeking to intervene to explain why the defence underspend was so large under Labour. There was actually a 3% cut in defence spending between 2006-07 and 2007-08, a shocking indictment of the previous Labour Government. If we widen the scope of the statistics to include Wales and Northern Ireland, we see that in the six years from 2002 to 2008 there was an accumulated underspend of £14.2 billion. In the same period in which there was an underspend of £5.6 billion in Scotland, there was a staggering £6.7 billion underspend in Wales and a £1.8 billion underspend in Northern Ireland. I point out to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches representing constituencies in England that regions across England similarly have significant issues of defence underspend.
	What the statistics show is shocking enough, but just wait for how the Ministry of Defence chose to deal with this! Did it make policy choices to deal with the underspend or make decisions to remedy the fact that there were these cuts in defence manpower? No, it did not. In 2009, tucked away at the end of a report, there was an “important note” entitled “Cessation of National & Regional Employment Estimates”, which stated:
	“Ministers have agreed that after this year (2009) the Ministry of Defence…will no longer compile national and regional employment estimates because the data do not directly support MOD policy making and operations.”
	I thought, my goodness, surely there is some mistake—that could not be the case. Then, on 6 April last year, the then Secretary of State for Defence provided what turned out to be the last parliamentary answer on defence expenditure in Scotland, confirming that it was not a mistake, and that rather than dealing with the policy challenges the MOD was going to get rid of the proof:
	“Since 2008 the MOD has not collected estimates of regional expenditure on equipment, non-equipment, or personnel costs as they do not directly support policy making or operations.”—[Official Report, 6 April 2010; Vol. 508, c. 1200W.]
	The information is still readily available within the Ministry of Defence, but the decision was taken not to provide it to Parliament.
	This has happened since the time of the last Labour Government. Given the public pronouncements about transparency, new politics and the respect agenda that we heard from the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat coalition allies, I hoped that their rhetoric might be matched by openness. I have not been encouraged by much in the coalition agreement, but it says on page 7:
	“we”—
	that is, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats—
	“are both committed to turning old thinking on its head and develop new approaches to government. For years, politicians could argue that because they held all the information, they needed more power. But today, technological innovation has—with astonishing speed—developed the opportunity to spread information and decentralise power in a way we have never seen before. So we will extend transparency to every area of public life.”
	Section 16 of the agreement, entitled “Government transparency”, continues:
	“The Government believes that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account. We also recognise that this will help to deliver better value for money in public spending, and help us achieve our aim of cutting the record deficit. Setting government data free will bring significant economic benefits”.
	There were two specific commitments. First,
	“We”—
	the Government—
	“will require full, online disclosure of all central government spending and contracts over £25,000”;
	and secondly,
	“We”—
	the Government—
	“will create a new ‘right to data’ so that government-held datasets can be requested and used by the public”.
	Aha! I was encouraged. Surely, given those commitments, we would see the information. I am delighted that the Minister for the Armed Forces is able to join us at this stage, because what I am about to say relates directly to him.
	I was delighted to hear similar claims of openness from the new ministerial defence team in the House of Commons debate on the strategic defence and security review on 21 June. Hansard records that the new Minister for the Armed Forces said:
	“Hon. Members—and everybody else—have the opportunity to contribute and make whatever representations they wish to make. If there are hon. Members who feel that they are under-informed, and want more information to inform representations that they might make during the review, they need only let us know. Ministers have an open-door policy, and Members are welcome to any further information that they feel they need.”
	That prompted me to intervene and ask:
	“During the previous Parliament, the Labour Government provided statistics on employment and expenditure throughout the nations and regions of the UK. Will the new coalition Government give a commitment to continue producing those statistics?”
	The Minister replied:
	“Yes. Whatever information right hon. and hon. Members need in order to make representations to the review—”
	but to be doubly sure, I interjected:
	“Is that a yes?”
	The Minister answered, unambiguously:
	“That is a yes. Hon. Members need only ask for any information that they need.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 132.]
	Naturally, I was delighted.

Nick Harvey: Our position then, as today, was that we are only too ready to share with hon. Members any information that we have and that we compile. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the previous Government ceased to compile that information, and frankly for very good reason. It was unreliable information being measured against an old and out-of-date baseline. No defence decisions were being made in the light of that information. It is several years since that information has been compiled. We are happy to share with him any information that we have in this regard, but we do not have that information any longer.

Angus Robertson: I am terribly sorry, but I just do not think that is good enough. I know that the Minister has just arrived, and no doubt he has come from an important engagement, but before he arrived I was making the case that there are very good reasons to continue to have this information. It seems to me that the very good reasons in the MOD for stopping the publication of these datasets is that, frankly, they are so embarrassing.
	I return to the turn of events, which it is important for Members to understand. Having received those assurances from the Minister for the Armed Forces in this Chamber, I wrote a grateful letter to him:
	“I wanted to thank you personally for your unambiguous commitment during this week’s debate on the Strategic Defence and Security Review that the new Coalition Government will continue to publish both employment and defence spending statistics for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom… Towards the end of the term of office of the last government it was proving difficult to secure these important statistics and I am appreciative that you have given such a clear assurance that they will continue to be published.”
	In the blink of an eye—I assume it was written as soon as my letter arrived in the Minister’s private office—I received a letter back saying much the same as he has just said from the Dispatch Box. In an instant, the Ministry of Defence reneged on a promise made in the House of Commons and in the coalition agreement that there would be openness and transparency. There are also vital clues that should concern everybody who cares about the defence footprint across the UK. Apparently, the Government think that there is
	“no clear defence benefit to be gained”
	from collating statistics by region and nation, and national and regional data do not
	“directly support MOD policy making”.
	That will come as a shock to many people, not least the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has said publicly in terms that economic considerations will form part of the basing review. How on earth can we have an informed debate when the Government do not even provide the statistics?

Mel Stride: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing that there is some value to the MOD in exercising its duty from collecting this dataset. Is there a value or not? If there is, what is it?

Angus Robertson: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that is the crucial question. The information was viewed as essential by previous Governments. Why? Because it informed us about the impact of MOD policy making on the nations and regions of the UK. That was why the figures were collated in the first place and why the answers were provided to MPs. Members asked questions about the information because we thought it was important, and the Hansard record will show that those questions were asked by MPs of all parties.
	The information is not just important in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales but should be a matter of concern to people throughout England, too. They need to understand what impact MOD policy making is having on their part of the country. The figures should inform us of that. Should they lead all decisions? Of course not, but they should inform policy decisions.

Nigel Dodds: We are talking about the publication of information and statistics that were previously published and are published elsewhere across the world. Such statistics are published on other matters, not just defence. Surely no one can argue against the hon. Gentleman’s central theme, which is that we should know the impact that this vast area of expenditure has on the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.

Angus Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that everybody should understand. Providing the information is not difficult. Governments here have done it, and Governments elsewhere around the world do it. Frankly, we would be in dereliction of our duty as parliamentarians if we did not try to inform ourselves of how the Department that we are trying to hold to account is spending our constituents’ tax money. How that informs our political priorities is a totally different matter, but the coalition parties made an express commitment to everybody in the United Kingdom that they would seek and deliver transparency. When it comes to defence statistics, they have reneged on that.
	This is an opportunity for both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members—and Labour Members if they have found their conscience on the issue—to understand that this is an important problem that is easily remedied. The new clause would allow that to happen, as it would force the MOD to provide and publish the statistics that we all deserve. That is why, unless the Minister agrees to publish the statistics, I will force a Division on this important issue.

Andrew Robathan: Having listened to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), I have to say that I thought his indignation was completely synthetic. What is important is how the money is spent, not how statistics are gathered, and I will put on record what we feel.
	The Ministry of Defence has no plans to reinstate the publication of annual estimates of regional defence spending or the employment effects of that expenditure. The Department decided to stop the compilation and publication of those statistics three years ago. Although the statistics were valuable in giving national and regional employment context to defence spending, the data did not directly support MOD policy making and operations. Furthermore, the compilation of the series depended on external sources that had not been updated for some
	years. The MOD had been struggling to maintain the quality of the statistics even to a basic level. To reinstate their compilation would cost the Department about £500,000 in the next four years.
	The purpose of the defence budget is to maintain the armed forces so that they can contribute to our nation’s security—a nation that includes, I am glad to say, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Every pound that the MOD spends must contribute to the security of the United Kingdom, and it gets doled out not on a regional basis but on a defence-needs basis.

Nigel Dodds: I stand as a member of a Unionist party in Northern Ireland that is proud to be part of the United Kingdom, but this is not about being part of the UK. It is about the information that is available to Members of Parliament and the public. Surely the Minister should recognise that distinction.

Andrew Robathan: Information on employment is quite readily available with a little bit of hard work, but I am afraid that we must consider the cost of compiling inaccurate statistics. The previous Government took their view, and we support it. Decisions on where personnel are based and which contracts are let to which firms are based solely on what is best for the armed forces and the defence of the realm. It is the duty of Government to ensure that the defence budget is spent wisely, maximising the resources available on the front line and ensuring that every pound counts.

Angus Robertson: The Minister points out that because a caveat in the coalition agreement suggests that the publication of some statistics is more expensive than the publication of others, he has a get-out-of-jail card in respect of publishing statistics on defence and the MOD.

Andrew Robathan: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is being deliberately obtuse. The point is that the Government do not have all the statistics to publish, and compiling them would be extremely expensive—and, as I just said, they are becoming increasingly inaccurate. We do not compile statistics on everything.
	Those estimates were difficult and intensive to maintain. They relied on analytical tables produced by the Office for National Statistics that have not been updated since 1995. As I have explained, the statistics did not support the MOD’s decision making. I have looked into how much it would cost to reintroduce the estimates and the cost is higher than the benefit to defence. My main focus, and our main focus, must be on doing what is best for the armed forces.
	I note from previous debates on this subject that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the cessation of those statistics will mean that a gap emerges in information on defence, particularly with regard to Scotland. It should be noted that assessments of the employment effects of MOD expenditure will continue to be undertaken for individual defence projects, and as part of the regional impact assessments that are conducted to inform MOD base closures. For instance, we know how many people are employed at specific bases—that is quite straightforward—but we do not compile huge tables of statistics that are of no great value. Decisions and policy in these areas will continue to use evidence about the employment impacts.
	In the light of that, I hope the Committee rejects new clause 15.

Angus Robertson: I pointed out that the coalition parties made a pledge on transparency in their agreement. They said that they would provide all information on contracts of more than £25,000. I am sorry to say, however, that the Minister has suggested at the Dispatch Box that, somehow, the coalition does not have to live up to that commitment in defence matters. The commitment that the statistics would be provided was also given to me in this Chamber, but it has been reneged on. More importantly, Members of Parliament should have those statistics as a matter of course. The fact that the outcome of those statistics is unfortunate for decision makers in the MOD is no reason not to publish them. That is why I press new clause 15 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 10, Noes 282.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 17
	 — 
	Duties of public bodies and Ministers

‘(1) In preparing policy, public bodies and Ministers must have regard to those matters to which the Secretary of State is to have regard in preparing an armed forces covenant report, under subsection (2A) of section 359A of AFA 2006.
	(2) In preparing policy, public bodies and Ministers must consider whether the making of special provision for service people or particular descriptions of service people would be justified.’.—(Gemma Doyle.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 213, Noes 291.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill, as amended, reported.
	Bill to be considered tomorrow

Business without Debate
	 — 
	European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

The Common Agricultural Policy Towards 2020

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 16348/10, a Commission Communication on the Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural
	resources and territorial challenges of the future; supports the UK Government’s response to this Communication, calling for ambitious reform that will enable farmers to adapt to future challenges; and notes that detailed legislative proposals are set to emerge by the end of 2011.
	—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	McMillan Daycare Nursery (Hull)

Diana Johnson: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Will Members leave the Chamber quickly and quietly? There is more business for the House to deal with.

Diana Johnson: I beg leave to present a petition signed by Kerry Stansfield and Abigail Flavell, both of whom are constituents of mine, and by more than 440 other people who oppose the closure of the McMillan day care nursery, which has been rated outstanding by Ofsted and which is managed by Andrew Shimmin, the excellent head teacher of McMillan children’s centre and nursery school.
	The petition
	Declares that statements made by Ministers of the Crown to the effect that Sure Start children’s centres across the country have sufficient funding to continue providing the level of service that they have attained in recent years, appear to be contradicted by the reductions that are happening across the country; further declares that the petitioners believe that the resulting reduction in the affordable childcare in children’s centres will discourage some parents from seeking employment and will prove damaging for the long-term development of children.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Ministers to review the funding arrangements for children’s centres to ensure that the valuable investment in the future that they represent is protected.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000929]

HOSPITAL FOOD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

Joan Walley: I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate on hospital food. As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and many Members will know, I have long been interested in this issue and have pursued it in Parliament, so when I was fortunate enough for my name to be drawn in the private Members’ Bills ballot at the beginning of this parliamentary Session, I was clear about the Bill I wanted to draft. I wanted it to introduce minimum nutritional, environmental and ethical standards for the food procured by the public sector and served in our hospitals, care homes, armed forces institutions and the rest of the public sector.
	The Bill gained widespread support from industry and from more than 60 health and environmental groups, including organisations as diverse as the caterer Sodexo, the women’s institute, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. These organisations have witnessed years of failed attempts to improve public sector food through voluntary initiatives, and have seen first hand the damage caused by bad food in our public institutions, and they are united in the belief that the only way to improve public sector food is to ensure that all public bodies buy food according to national minimum standards. Despite that, the archaic parliamentary procedure that applies to private Members’ Bills means my Bill has still not received its Second Reading debate, and without Government support it is very unlikely to proceed.The Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into parliamentary sitting hours, and I hope it takes seriously the inadequate procedure relating to private Members’ Bills and proposes reforms that allow MPs the opportunity to introduce a Bill and proper parliamentary time for the consideration of its merits. My experiences in that regard have led me to seek an Adjournment debate to address this general issue from the perspective of health and the procurement of sustainable food in so far as that affects the Department of Health.
	The procurement of sustainable food by the public sector is a cross-cutting issue. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has lead responsibility for cross-cutting sustainable development issues, and I expected it to have been more decisive and to have taken an effective initiative in exploring how progress can be made. I wish to bring to the attention of the House a letter from the DEFRA Minister with responsibility for food, which basically said there was an ongoing review and he hoped to have the opportunity to report to the House by March, but we still have not had that opportunity.
	Tonight’s debate arises at a timely moment given today’s announcement on the Health and Social Care Bill, and I want to link the issue of sustainable food and procurement with health and healthy food in hospitals. If, indeed, the stated aim of our NHS is to have excellent care for all, we need to address the issue of hospital food, so I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the procurement of sustainable food in hospitals as well as the equally important issue of the quality of hospital food—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Dawn Primarolo: I am sorry for the interruption, but the procedure caught up with us. Please, continue.

Joan Walley: I am most grateful for the explanation, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was confused by the fact that this Adjournment debate started before 10 o’clock. That might explain some of my slight nervousness, as I was unsure about whether I was speaking in order with the proceedings of the House. I am grateful.
	Sustainable food procurement links to health and to hospital food, too. I want the Government to set out the role that food plays in patient pathways and the priority I believe that hospitals should give to ensuring that, where required, patients are assisted to eat the food that is served. We have heard too many shocking accounts of malnutrition and dehydration as well as the plain criticism that hospital food is bad and unappetising. We should be doing something about that.
	At the core of this debate is a central contradiction. The Government are happy to rail against regulation and boast about their bonfire of red tape, but they are equally proud—and rightly so—of their standards for the procurement of sustainable food for the Olympics and of their intentions for there to be a Government buying standard for food. They promote their localism agenda aggressively, leaving choice to those at a local level, but the net effect, I believe, is that no overall quality standard applies to the food served in hospitals. I do not see how such a postcode lottery can be justified and I want to consider that in more detail.
	Let me turn first to malnutrition. It is not just a matter of having appetising food for patients; this can literally be a matter of life and death. In its 2009 report submitted to the Department of Health, the Nutrition Action Plan Delivery Board showed that in the region of 47,800 people had died with malnutrition while in English hospitals in 2007. Of those, 239 patients died directly because of malnutrition—that is an important distinction to make. In the report, the delivery board recommended as a key priority that the Government should clarify nutrition
	“standards and strengthen inspection and regulation”
	to address this problem. The issue is being flagged up.
	In its recent report, “Still Hungry to be Heard”, Age UK found that the number of people leaving hospital malnourished is on the increase. A recent answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), placed in the Library of the House of Commons, acknowledged that from 2006-07 to 2009-10, instances of malnutrition increased in total from 2,581 to 3,773 and, as regards discharged episodes, from 2,883 to 4,412. That inevitably leads to further serious consequences, including longer stays in hospital, the need to take more medication and an increased risk of infection and even death.
	To put it in purely financial terms, the estimated cost of malnutrition to the NHS in 2006 was £7.3 billion a year. Although we do not have an accurate figure for how much it costs the NHS today, given the fact that
	malnutrition is on the increase it is likely to be higher still. I believe that the Department of Health should have up-to-date figures on the cost of malnutrition, and I urge the Minister to look into the matter and give us an indication of what the costs are.
	Dealing with malnutrition in hospitals is not simply about making food taste better. Even if we could do that, a whole range of other issues must be addressed. First, hospital staff must be aware of what food patients can and cannot eat. They need to be able to identify which patients need help with eating their meals and to be willing and able to provide that help or, if they cannot provide it, to have a robust system of volunteers to assist. Age UK has produced a seven-step guide to eradicating malnutrition in hospitals, to which I urge the Minister to give his attention. There is also an issue with dehydration and it is important to make sure that patients in hospital have proper access to water. That simply cannot be taken for granted.
	It is not only nutrition and malnutrition that need to be addressed. There must be recognition by Government of the role that healthy food plays in healthy lives. The Government estimate that 70,000 preventable deaths each year in the UK are caused by diet-related ill health. One simple thing that the Government could do to tackle that problem is to ensure that the food served to patients in hospital is nutritious. That sounds simple but the issue is how it will be done. It is also important that the Government prioritise the role of public health.
	I also want to mention the dignity and nutrition reports—[ Interruption. ] I am most grateful. Talking of dehydration, it is important that I refer to the dignity and nutrition reports recently published by the Care Quality Commission.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to take a seat and take some more water so as not to strain her voice, I am sure that the Chamber will not mind waiting a few seconds more.

Joan Walley: I am most grateful Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The first tranche of what will be 100 dignity and nutrition reports into individual hospitals found that in four of the 10 hospitals investigated, the nutritional needs of patients were not being met. The reports also stated that the quality of hospital food remains a long-standing concern. This highlights both the extent of the problem and the importance of the Care Quality Commission’s role in monitoring and reporting on hospital performance in relation to nutrition. I believe that its resources should be increased so that it can carry out more such checks and fulfil the delivery board’s recommendation of strengthening inspection and regulation. I also believe that the CQC should be made fully accountable for how that work is done.
	I want to discuss regulation because that is ultimately the best means of improving hospital food. It is remarkable that there are still absolutely no legal standards governing the quality of the 330 million meals served in the NHS each year. In its report, “Yet more hospital food failure”, published earlier this year, Sustain’s “Good Food for Our Money” campaign surveyed dozens of Government-backed initiatives to improve the quality of hospital food. Alas, it found that those initiatives have cost at
	least £54 million of taxpayers money and have achieved improvements in only very few isolated cases. The reason is simple: they have all been voluntary, so except in those few isolated cases they have been largely ignored. Let us contrast that with the successful attempts to improve the food served in schools, where meals have to meet legal nutritional standards. A survey by Consensus Action on Salt and Health—CASH—in October 2010 showed that most meals served to children in hospital could not legally be served in a school because they contained too high a level of salt and saturated fat. The reason for the success in schools is simple: minimum nutritional standards in schools are legally binding, but in hospitals they are purely voluntary.
	To date, successive Governments have failed to send a clear message to hospital caterers that the quality of their food is critical to patient health and the sustainability of our food system. It is not asking for the impossible. For many years, the Royal Brompton hospital in Chelsea has practised a progressive approach to its food procurement, providing nutritious and appetising meals prepared from fresh ingredients, which enables patients to recover faster.
	Unfortunately, the Government’s ideological commitment not to introduce more regulation, regardless of its merit, is a serious block to improving hospital food. I return to Government buying standards. The coalition Government have at least recognised that voluntary initiatives have limited effect; they do not work across the board and over time. As a result, they will introduce Government buying standards that set compulsory minimum standards for food served in central Government institutions. I hope it will be soon, as the standards were promised for March 2011, and we have waited for more than a year. They were promised by the Conservative party pre-election; they were welcomed by the coalition Government and were the subject of a great deal of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs civil servant attention throughout 2010. The work also involved the Department of Health to integrate badly needed health standards for food served in central Government institutions. The integration of health and sustainability standards for food bought with public money was an innovative and much needed approach, and should act as an inspiration for the wider catering sector to follow suit. Tackling health, ethical and environmental issues together should save the country money and be of great benefit to food producers and the environment.
	The real issue for me is that even when the Cabinet Office home affairs committee signs off the Government buying standards, they will not apply to hospitals and hospital food. That is the heart of the concern. On the day the Government are revising the Health and Social Care Bill and recommitting it to further scrutiny, should the Health Minister not be exploring with colleagues at DEFRA and in the Cabinet how the long-promised Government buying standards can be extended to hospital food? If that is ruled out, surely there should be urgent discussions with the NHS Future Forum, the National Audit Office and expert groups, such as Age Concern and Sustain, which have a track record on this matter, with a view to tabling amendments to the Bill so that we have minimum standards for nutrition in hospital food.

Tessa Munt: There is another part to the equation. I have worked in further education colleges and it would seem logical that when we train chefs they
	should take a module on the specifics of nutrition for people in hospital. That is a different element. Does the hon. Lady think we could focus on that to improve standards?

Joan Walley: I am glad to take that intervention. It is an extremely important point. Basic minimum standards should be applied to schools and in future to hospitals, but that will not happen by accident. It will happen only if we put in place all the necessary education, training and skills. Whoever is responsible for providing the food needs to be trained. I agree that that is a third dimension to the issue.
	I apologise to the House for having lost my voice because of my cold. In conclusion, surely there is no other institution where it is more vital to serve healthy, wholesome food than in our hospitals. That is important in so many ways—for the recovery of patients, staff morale, and the atmosphere that fills the wards. When hospitals serve good nutritious food, everyone benefits. I therefore call on the Government to introduce minimum nutritional, environmental and ethical standards for hospital food that will radically improve the quality of food served, reduce costs to the NHS and improve the health of the nation.

Simon Burns: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) on securing this debate on hospital food. I hope she gets better swiftly. I have considerable sympathy with her as she was clearly suffering through no fault of her own, and I wish her a speedy recovery.
	I know that food and nutrition is a subject dear to the hon. Lady’s heart, and that she has done a considerable amount of work in her constituency, bringing together schools, primary care trusts, the city council and others, Prue Leith not least among them, to see what can be done locally to improve the diet of her constituents. I pay tribute also to the many NHS staff who have worked so hard to push nutritional care up the agenda, and who continue to make it their priority.
	Good food—nutritionally balanced, clinically appropriate meals that taste good— are right up there with good hygiene and good clinical care when it comes to a patient’s experience of the NHS. They are all things that we should be able to take for granted while being cared for by the NHS. Good food contributes directly to recovery from illness and it adds structure to a day that can be all too long and featureless. Although I agree with much of what the hon. Lady said, there are some details on which we may not have such close proximity of views.
	As the hon. Lady mentioned in the course of her comments, we will shortly publish the Government buying standards for food. Developed by DEFRA and the Department of Health, they will support and encourage public bodies to provide a healthy balanced diet for public sector workers. They will also help to reduce the environmental impact of food and catering in the public sector. However, as the hon. Lady said, within the NHS, these standards will be voluntary, not mandatory. Government buying standards are already promoted through the NHS operating framework for 2011-12 and through the Boorman review of health and well-being
	on the NHS, now being implemented by NHS Employers. We will promote the Government buying standards through training and materials developed to help NHS organisations to procure more sustainably.
	The Government believe in giving far greater responsibility and control locally to NHS providers. NHS trusts must be allowed to determine their own procurement policy. Hospitals need to find out the wants and needs of their local population and then work out how to meet them efficiently. Government’s role is to set the direction and the policy, but it is for local experts to deliver the food locally. This is not to say that the NHS is on its own. There are a number of resources available, including guidance on reducing food waste, sustainable procurement and developing menus and food services.
	No health care catering manager need feel unsupported. If hospitals wish to increase the proportion of locally-sourced food, there is guidance to help them do that. If they have a problem with food waste, there are resources that can help them to tackle it. This is the way we should tackle problems—with assistance and support, not restrictive legislation and diktat. It is wrong for Government to meddle in the detail and to attempt to micro-manage the NHS from on high. Our job is to create the right environment, to set standards and to lead, and that is what we are doing.

Joan Walley: Is not there a contradiction in having minimum standards in schools but not having minimum standards that would apply in the same way to patients in hospitals?

Simon Burns: No, I do not think so, for the reasons that I have already given and because of our ethos that the modernised NHS should respond through local decision-making rather than top-down diktat from Whitehall or Westminster. However, as I have outlined, we are prepared to, and we have and we will, provide the guidance to enable local deliverers to seek advice and take decisions based on the best needs of their patients.
	We should also bear in mind that the food needs of patients are already regulated and checked by the Care Quality Commission, through the choice of suitable food, the food and nutrition to meet reasonable needs and the support to enable patients to eat and drink—a subject that I will come on to because I feel very much, as the hon. Lady did, that that is an essential part of the care of patients in a hospital setting.
	I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about poor standards of nutritional care. In too many cases, food has slipped off the menu of some NHS providers, and that is not good enough. Of course, proper nutritional care is a multidisciplinary affair. There are many links in the chain from field to fork. Food must be well sourced and properly cooked by well-trained catering staff, delivered efficiently by the porters, and properly presented on the ward. The chain is a long one, and if any single link breaks, the good work that went before it is undone. Of course, the best food is of no value if it is not eaten, and many people, particularly older patients, will need help, and they must have it. Stories of food left out of reach, or taken away before a patient has had the chance to eat it are shocking and, sadly, too common, as are stories of those unable to feed themselves left without the assistance they require.
	The latest in-patient survey found that less than two thirds—64%—of patients always got the help they needed to eat. But that sadly meant that 36% did not always get the help, which, frankly, is unacceptable. That is something that hospitals must concentrate on to ensure that we quickly and dramatically raise those figures. In a civilised society, in this day and age, that is unacceptable as part of patient care, particularly for elderly people.
	That is why we asked the CQC to inspect 100 hospitals, focusing on issues of dignity and nutrition. The CQC has begun to publish reports on individual hospitals, and we expect a final report in September. In most cases so far, the care was every bit as good as one would expect. There were many examples of high-quality nursing and of people enjoying healthy, nutritious meals. Indeed, in a number of cases, the quality of food was actually complimented. But the inspections also identified a number of hospitals that were failing to provide the nutritional care their patients need. In one damning example, a doctor was forced to prescribe water on a patient's medicine chart to ensure they got enough to drink. That, again, is unacceptable, and something that one would find hard to believe if it had not shown up in the inspection. Where there are deficiencies, the CQC has demanded that improvements are made. Progress against these demands will be followed up and, like everyone in this House, I expect such follow-up to be rigorous and complete.
	The CQC's inspection programme is just one example of how we are shining a light on all aspects of the performance of NHS providers—in this case on hospital food. There are also the annual patient environment action team inspections, the CQC's in-patient survey and patient feedback through NHS Choices, along with any local surveys that trusts choose to undertake. This information is crucial if patients are to make informed choices about their care and if pressure is to be brought to bear upon providers to improve.
	Improving the patient experience of care is vital to drive up standards. Providers need to listen to patients’ complaints and suggestions and to change and improve in response. This will be one of the main ways in which the NHS will improve in coming years. Our information revolution will mean that patients are better placed to understand and influence the NHS, and we expect to see standards increase as performance becomes more transparent.
	When it comes to hospital food, people know what they want. They expect good-quality, wholesome meals that are attractively served, arrive on time and taste good. They want to receive the food they ordered, not what is left over. They want to be able to eat it in comfort, they want sufficient fluids to drink, and they want the help they need when they need it. That is hardly asking the earth, so we owe it to them to be clear about what they can expect in their local hospital, however good or bad it may be.
	I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about hospitals that are built without kitchens. However, there are many ways to provide food in hospitals. Excellent meals can be delivered ready-made, either chilled or frozen, and poor-quality food is not an inevitable consequence of being made off-site. Although the quality of the food at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire has
	been rated as among the poorest 20% in the country, that is not simply because it is not made in a hospital kitchen. Other hospitals, such as those in Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, also have meals brought in and maintain in-patient survey scores that are among the highest in the country. In fact, for a small hospital, delivered meals can combine a wider choice of food and more accommodating meal times, with economies of scale and greater flexibility.
	Delivered meals can also help hospitals to meet high sustainability standards, because although on-site kitchens might at first seem more likely to be sustainable, that is not necessarily the case. Larger off-site kitchens are often more efficient because, by utilising economies of scale, they can reduce the amount of energy they use. What is important is the quality of the finished product and whether it meets the specific needs of patients, not where or by whom the food is produced or prepared. If the best solution for a particular hospital is to do that on site, that is what should happen. However, the service should be contracted out if that is in the best interests of the individual hospital and its patients. We should reject any knee-jerk reaction that says doing it in one way will automatically be a disaster, or vice versa. With food, as with all aspects of NHS care, it is the outcomes that are important to patients, not the process. We need to remember that whoever provides the food, the trust management retains the responsibility for its quality. If the provider does not meet the standards that the trust has set, it must take action.
	Of course, efficiency and value for money are also important. We have to find ways of producing excellent food at manageable cost. For some hospitals, that will certainly mean looking at delivered meals. This is sensible and prudent management, but it need not and should not mean poor quality. As long ago as 2002, the Audit Commission found no relationship between the amount of money spent on meals and their quality, and the Department of Health’s more recent internal analysis backs this up. Across the country there are trusts that provide great meals at low cost, which is precisely what all providers should aspire to. The Queen Victoria hospital NHS foundation trust is in the top 10% of NHS organisations rated by patients for having good food, but in the lowest 5% for production costs.
	As ever, improving patient experience is central to the Government’s vision of the NHS. Good food is not only a vital element of that experience, but vital for improving clinical outcomes. However, I do not accept that the answer to these problems is to impose ever more controls that would prove expensive to administer, undermine local accountability and stifle the innovation and flexibility that hospitals need to tailor improvements to their specific local needs and constraints. Where food services are not as good as they should be, we should highlight the fact in order to improve care for patients. I do not pretend that making improvements will be easy or fast. Although there is much to do, I am confident that we now have the right approach and that the real winners in all of this will be patients.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned .